Envy. It’s one of the seven deadly sins according to the Christian faith.
Irrespective of one’s faith, most of us, if not all, would be agreed that envy is a destructive sentiment. It corrodes and divides. Being resentful about another person’s success or good fortune doesn’t improve one’s lot in life.
Class warfare, destructive and corrosive as it is, is based on exploiting the sentiments of jealousy by the “have nots” against those that “have.” History is littered with leaders who have played that card to the great detriment of their people. Think Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba.
For a more modern-day example, we need to look no further than Venezuela—once South America’s most prosperous country, it has turned into a dysfunctional poverty-stricken society through the application by the government of a policy framework of envy that masqueraded as equality.
Yet, the equality delivered was ultimately the equality of everyone being in equal poverty.
In this context, the language and expressed motivation used by government representatives in Australia in promoting suggested changes to the superannuation (retirement pension fund) framework is so worrying. It has all the hallmarks of the tried and failed politics of envy.
It stands to reason that in any area of human endeavour, some will do better than others, be it in sports, music, academia, or wealth creation. Therefore, as a society, we need to celebrate and honour success in whatever field, as long as it is achieved within the parameters of the law.
So, if people have the capacity and inclination to squirrel away extra sums in superannuation, adding to the totality of savings, then that is a behaviour we should be applauding.
From 1 to 80,000
During a press conference, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese singled out one superannuation account containing more than $400 million (US$270 million), and 16 others with similarly eye-watering amounts—we are already seeing top-level government descending the stairs of envy.If superannuation is seen as good and tax concessions are provided to encourage that good, then it appears our government is now saying that with superannuation, you can have too much of a good thing.
Singling out 17 of your citizens who have saved their hard-earned dollars and invested in superannuation is just an example of scapegoating (undoubtedly, this is all part of the government’s commitment to being ‘inclusive’).
To soften the blow, we have been mercifully spared retrospectivity of sorts.
Sure, the system will change in the future, but if plans were laid on the basis of the current law, they will be severely disrupted. And the government dismisses any concerns by telling us only 80,000 of our fellow citizens will be impacted.
Nevertheless, the precedent has been set. We could be next.
In a matter of a few sentences, we were told about one person, then 17, and finally 80,000. Thank goodness the prime minister stopped talking, as one wonders how many Australians would’ve been impacted had he kept on.
Australia Will Not Become Richer Through Higher Taxes
In all of this, no talk about the negative consequences or offsets, which one rightly assumes will occur if there is an exodus of monies or an investment strike in superannuation given the uncertainty so willfully and deliberately created, compounded by the promise at the election not to change the superannuation rules.To add insult to injury, we were regaled with the rhetoric of people having to make tough decisions because of inflation, also expecting their government to make tough decisions. Such an out-of-touch and divorced from reality comment is hard to fathom.
Families sitting around the kitchen table trying to balance their budget forego certain expenditures to make ends meet. The government thinks it’s a tough decision to raid our pockets even more.
Tough decision making would be to cut government waste, not raid the long-suffering taxpayers even more.
No nation has ever taxed itself into wealth. On the contrary, excessive taxation is a sure path to stifling investment and hard work from which the whole of society benefits.
To the short-term thinking politician, the idea of tapping into the envy sentiment and having a few extra dollars to spend might temporarily make the people happy. But it is also the beginning of undermining the economic well-being of an economy.
Change the rules, and you undermine confidence as people will rightly wonder when the next previously denied change to their detriment would be imposed.
And if the thinking recently exposed in relation to superannuation were to be applied to private school support or health insurance—what then?
These are questions correctly asked and pondered by the population at large and not just today’s 80,000 scapegoated victims.
The saying is true, “you don’t make yourself any taller by cutting your opponent off at the knees.” Australians won’t be better off by singling out even tens of thousands with particularly high levels of superannuation savings.
The politics of envy never plays out well, especially for those who are already poor.
