The Gillard government is looking for other people’s money to fill its self-inflicted gaps, and the BCA is taking a stand:
the board of the Business Council of Australia warned that the push to cut superannuation tax breaks for top earners was damaging to a compulsory savings system that was crucial to dealing with the costs of an ageing population.
Indeed, President Tony Shepherd is channelling, robustly, John Locke and James Madison in speaking for the basic rights to property:
Tony Shepherd said: “Philosophically, I object to the term ‘concessions’. The money is ours. We go to work, we get paid. The money is ours. It’s up to government to justify how much they take from us. It’s not theirs, it’s our money. It’s not a concession, it’s our money.”
It is positive to see a business group taking this position, arguing for classical liberal concepts in the public domain and taking on a nannying and statist government.
Pity it only appears when the superannuation and retirement income of the upper echelons of corporate Australia come under threat.
In fact, the robustness of this argument, compared with the lukewarm opposition the BCA has given to government intervention with other people’s money, crony subsidy, public sector reform and similar, drives this writer’s hypocrisy detectors to high.
Why does this kind of liberty talk only appear when it affects mid-to-upper level managers in large corporate/public sector organisations?
Why is the misuse of taxes only an upfront issue when it makes our corporate class worried about its net worth?
By all means, give the BCA credit for talking about productivity, infrastructure, budget surplus, clarity of government direction and so on. Spot on.
But it does little for the argument for retaining the fruits of your labour when the BCA only seems motivated when it affects their mates. A better way to give the Left an argument for the business class’ focus on their own sectional privilege would be hard to find.