2020-07-01
The Greens should celebrate that several of our policies benefit both older and younger voters
By Rob Delves, GI Co-editor
Negative gearing, capital gains tax 50% discount, franking credits, extravagant superannuation tax concessions and policy settings that unleashed even more extravagant inflation in the value of housing assets (very lightly taxed indeed, thank you very much). Never try to come between a baby boomer and his “hard-won” entitlements: Hard won absolutely and only because of the sheer hard work he put in, of course. Nothing to do with the Howard government wasting the billions from the mining boom and sale of Telstra with tax concessions and other indulgences for the baby boomers.
And this entitled cohort, of whom I’m a reluctant proud member, have repaid the largesse with loyal voting. At the 2013 election, the Coalition received 61% of the votes from the over 65s, whereas only 3.5% voted Green. In 2019, the percentages were 59% Coalition and 2% Greens. At the other end of the age spectrum, in 2019 The Greens attracted 28% of the under 35s primary votes, while the Coalition only received 23%. This generational divide has steadily widened this century, maybe in part because the conservatives have staunchly defended every single one of the baby boomers’ goodies, while Labor (to some extent) and The Greens (to a larger extent) have made it clear that the tax-concessions bonanza flowing up to the better-off baby boomers has to end.
Let’s be clear that this massive growth in inequality isn’t as simple as taking from all young people and giving to all over 60s – there are plenty of older people who’ve gained nothing or very little. However, I often get exasperated trying to engage in reasonable debate with some of my fellow boomers who are doing very well from the system, because most of their arguments defending their entrenched unfair advantages are frankly self-justifying garbage. They remind me of 18th Century stories of slave owners prattling on about how slavery was good for blacks as well as whites. Or, much more recently, in the 1980s when I was working in Zimbabwe, having to listen to racist white people explain why pre-independence Rhodesia was a “fantastic country where white and black people shared.”
There’s a powerful modern saying whose origin is hard to pin down, but appears to have arisen during the struggle for women’s rights. It goes to the heart of the reason why many baby boomers defend their entitlements with such righteous fury: When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Throughout the 1970s, as Feminists made the case for gender equality with increasing confidence and conviction, the male response was often negative and defensive, sometimes stridently so. However, an increasing number of men gradually came to accept the sheer common-sense fairness of the Feminist case. The challenging question for these men was not whether Women’s Liberation was fair, but whether it meant only loss for men or whether the changes could be good for men too. Many men I knew agreed that these changes were challenging for them, but also beneficial.
I think that our social justice pillar demands that we continue the struggle to demolish every one of those (mainly) Howard-era changes that have exacerbated inequality across all of Australia, with a special twist of unfairness towards young people. However, in the spirit of my 1980s male friends contemplating the challenges of Women’s Liberation, I’d like to suggest there are a number of Greens policies that promote solidarity between the under 30s and the over 60s – a better life for both generations. We should be highlighting this solidarity when we promote these policies.
Let’s start with taxation on property ownership. The Greens (WA) Housing policy includes a commitment to replace stamp duty with a broad-based annual land tax. State governments are addicted to the revenue stream from stamp duty but it is a deeply unfair and unpopular tax. It is paid by the purchaser of a house at the time of sale and can add a painful extra burden: for example, in Perth the stamp duty on a median-priced home of $500,000 is about $20,000. Abolishing stamp duty benefits both young and old adults: it makes it easier for young people to afford that first home and also easier for older people to downsize to a smaller home.
Starting in 2012 this exact policy was introduced in stages by the Labor-Greens government in the ACT, defended against the usual Liberal fact-deficient scare campaign and confirmed when the government was re-elected on this platform. Like the Greens (WA) policy, the ACT change is designed to be strictly revenue neutral. I would like to see us go further and advocate for the land tax to be gradually increased over a period of about ten years, so that it generated considerable extra revenue – enough to pay for building hundreds of public housing units each year. Ballpark figures would be that an annual land tax of about $700 on a median house, in today prices, would achieve that outcome.
Obviously, this would create tension, but tension that is strong on social justice. Those who’ve become wealthy from the massive inflation in house prices over recent decades are being required to share a very small percentage of that wealth for the common good. For example, the house I bought in 1994 has increased in value by more than $600,000, without me doing much. I know others who’ve gained a lot more than that. According to Greens values, a small tax on that wealth increase would seem to be a no-brainer – it would surely even pass the much-loved pub fairness test, at least if most home-owning boomers were absent that night. As often is the case, right doesn’t mean people are persuaded: good luck trying to convince most of my entitled fellow boomers to happily pay up.
So, let’s move on to the second solidarity policy, the Jobs Guarantee. Job security is a central plank of the Next Gen Guarantee. It’s a recognition that young people are impacted more than others by the fear of having no job at all, of not having enough hours of work and the patchy unreliable nature of what’s offered. Some key sentences from The Greens website:
- Under our Jobs Guarantee, as the private sector gets back on its feet, the government would offer a job to any young person from 18 to 29 who wants it.
- You would also have a choice of mixing your current employment with a government-provided job, or better matching your study and your income
- And it will be completely up to you, as there would be no consequences for deciding not to take up a Next Gen Guarantee job: your Income Guarantee payment and/or taking up a place in study would still be available.
- The government will be your employer. You will get full entitlements (like annual leave), full health and safety protection and have the right to join a union.
The attractive features of this policy are that it provides choice, control, flexibility, security and dignity to the job seeker. It’s targeted at young people and the positives for them are obvious and legion. I appreciate that at this moment the Job Guarantee is limited to young people in our current crisis, but I’m hoping that some version of a Jobs Guarantee will become a central Greens policy. There’s abundant solidarity between young and old in such a wider policy, because we know that older workers who lose their job are at high risk of remaining unemployed for the rest of their days. When I decided I’d like to leave teaching at age 61 and try something else for ten or so years, I was surprised at how difficult it was (perhaps I shouldn’t have been). Four months and over 50 applications resulted in just one interview. I wasn’t chosen, but a few days later they offered me something at an even lower grade of pay and responsibility. When I tell this story to friends in my age group, they mostly top it with much more frustrating experiences. Many of them gave up after six months.
In addition, the flexibility in the Jobs Guarantee is very attractive to the large numbers of older workers who would love to have the option of part-time, casual or occasional work. In contrast to the existing workplace arrangements, where “flexibility” means employers call all the shots and employees are left managing all the risks and insecurity, this policy is rich in people-centred promises such as “you have a choice of mixing your current employment with a government-provided job.”
There’s been considerable debate about whether a Universal Basic Income (UBI) or a Jobs Guarantee is the better strategy for creating a fairer society. Arguments for both are persuasive, but I’ve recently come to believe that the Jobs Guarantee is better, as long as it’s paired with decent income support for those who aren’t able to participate in paid work.
The guest on the May 27 podcast of Michael Moore’s The Rumble was Darrick Hamilton, Professor of Public Policy at Ohio State University and member of the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force on economic issues. He outlined a range of changes that are urgently needed: housing, education, healthcare, and much more. They then asked each other this question: If you could only implement one change, what would it be? Michael Moore’s choice was one device that would charge every electronic device (oh, the vision splendid!)
Darrick Hamilton went straight for a Job Guarantee. He gave several important reasons, including that these public options will eliminate working poverty, eliminate involuntary unemployment and under-employment, at the same time providing the workforce to deliver the many essential goods and services that the private sector is currently not doing. Classic New Deal Stuff.
However, the reason that grabbed my attention was that the Job Guarantee will be a game changer in workplace relations. Currently employers have too much power, with many workers putting up with insecurity, poor pay and conditions because they have no other choice. The threat of losing your job and becoming destitute exerts a powerful discipline on private sector workers. However, the Job Guarantee flips this script and disciplines the employer, because it provides the worker with an alternative choice – a guaranteed public sector job with legislated living wage and decent conditions. The Job Guarantee, especially if combined with strong union presence, greatly improves the bargaining power of employees. It is a powerful change towards reducing inequality and unfairness.
I’m sure readers can come up with several other Greens’ policies that pass the under 30s and over 60s solidarity test. One obvious one is reducing car dependence by designing the walkable city with several transport options. I hope I’ve made the case that it’s important for us to stress the benefits for both young and old in our policies where that is clearly applicable.
Header picture: Australian Greens banner
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]