Anthony Albanese has backflipped on his promise to deliver the stage three tax cuts in full. He has proposed a new policy that would increase taxes on wealthier Australians but reduce them for people earning less than $150,000. However, even people who benefit this time should wonder: Will the next promise Albo breaks be the one that he made to you? Will you be thrown under the bus next time?

The backflip is painted as ‘equitable’ or ‘fair’. Albanese and Chalmers claim that they are increasing taxes on a minority of Australians to fund a tax cut for a larger number. For clarity, this is a tax increase… The government had legislated a tax cut of around $9,000 for higher-income earners. This has been halved. Relative to the status quo, this is a tax hike. But, lower-income earners will receive a tax cut.

The logic runs that something is fair if a majority benefits even if a minority lose relative to the status quo.

Let’s prod Albanese’s and Chalmers’ logic: What is their limiting principle? Where does that logic end? When is a majority entitled to run roughshod over a minority and when is it not?

The unfortunate fact is that Albanese and Chalmers have not articulated a limiting principle. For example, we see similar moves in relation to superannuation and the proposed levy on international student enrollments. The approach is to carve the populace into groups for each policy. In so doing, they can pit the ‘majority’ against the ‘minority’. This enables them to suggest that the policy is to help the majority of people. But, if you win on one policy, you could very easily lose when you are part of the castigated minority.

Albanese and Chalmers have now implicitly justified discrimination against minorities. So long as they can claim a majority benefit, a minority can be discriminated against. This is even if that logic takes us down a divisive and dangerous path.

Let’s see where the logic takes us: Albanese’s logic necessarily means that the government is allowed to nationalise your house because that would take from one person to benefit the rest of Australia. Or, the government can arbitrarily decide your house will have a road paved through it, or power lines constructed, or sewage lodged nearby. Their logic means that your individual rights mean nothing. The state dominates. And, people who are better off now, could easily find themselves on the other side next time.

The implication is that assets are a gift from the state that the state can redistribute at its discretion so long as they can argue that numerically more people benefit from that redistribution in this specific instance.

The concern also applies across state lines as well. Can Queensland be sacrificed to benefit NSW and Victoria? What about Tasmania? What about any state with a minority population? The Senate is only a minor protection here.

Albanese’s logic takes us into a dangerous area. It starts treating ‘minority’ groups as lesser than the majority in any policy decision. Far from being equitable, this is profoundly discriminatory.

We have seen where this state-focused thinking takes us, and it is not pretty. It takes us towards surreptitious asset seizures. Albanese and Chalmers are not so gauche as to literally seize your house. But, they could siphon the cash it generates, or siphon more of your wage, or more of your hard-earned super. We have already see signs of this. Labor tried it in 2019 with their proposed changes to property. They have already started chipping away at superannuation. They have already tried to impose a euphemistically termed ‘values-based capitalism’ on superannuation funds.

Albanese can get away with it this time because he can cynically attack people whom he deems to be wealthy. However, he has now asserted that the minority can be sacrificed. Here it is on wealth lines. But, his logic could just as easily ground racial, religious, or geographic discrimination.

Albanese has also shown that he is flippant with his word. The backflip was patently not militated by an ‘emergency’. The factors that allegedly drove it had existed for more than a year and had been well-canvased in the media.

The fundamental problem is that even people who benefit from this broken promise should ask themselves whether they will be next. After all, what makes you so confident you won’t be thrown under the bus next time? Will the next promise Albo breaks be the one that you were counting on and that was important to you?

These concerns are in addition to the well-canvased issue of bracket creep. Due to inflation, more Australians will find themselves in higher tax brackets. Thus, while some Australians might benefit now from this change, they will find themselves in higher tax brackets in the future. Short-term gain for long-term pain.

Albanese has now justified discrimination against minorities to benefit a majority. This is profoundly troubling. He has also undermined his own credibility: he is just as bad as the liars that he likes to decry. Even if you like this broken promise, is Albanese trustworthy enough to keep the ones that are important to you?

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in