PAUL KEATING'S LAST STAND?

"Paul Keating's assault on 'new federalism' is a leadership appeal pitched directly at the Labor conscience of an increasingly fragile Caucus and represents the opening of a new front in his battle with Bob Hawke." Glenn Milne, in The Australian, October 23rd.

In his attack, especially, on the proposal to return some taxing powers to the States, Mr. Keating nailed his centralist colours to the mast. These are 'a repudiation of Labor values': we would say Fabian Socialist values. Furthermore, Mr. Keating complains that, by returning taxing powers to the States, we would then have six separate tax systems. So what? Is this terrible? We had this situation up to 1940-41, when the Commonwealth assumed overall taxing powers under wartime emergency edict. We well recall that some hundreds of officers of State taxation departments were absorbed into the Commonwealth Public Service in those early years of the 1940s.

The taxation situation wasn't 'absurd' (Keating's word) before the 1939-45 War. If anything, Australia was better run then than it is today. We had come out of the Great Depression, and were able to put one million fighting men (and women) into uniform, and build up a mighty industrial base for the size of our then population.

What upsets the political centralists so much (political centralism is geared, of course, to economic centralism) is that the Commonwealth (Big Brother), under the return to the States of taxing powers, will lose some of its clout to insist on "social reforms", such as powers over Education. Fabian John Dawkins, Commonwealth Minister with powers over Education, is now hell bent on centralising higher education; even turning our universities into secular humanist propaganda factories in appropriate faculties (humanities). He is being resisted by such stalwart traditional academics as Professor David Pennington, of the University of Melbourne.

Double-Talk
Mr. Keating believes that our unity as a nation, our success as a federation, etc., etc., depend upon the national government having the power of the purse, and not the States. His policies, and those of the Fabians, are destroying the Australian Federation, and well they know it. Some of the Fabians are calling for the abolition of the States, altogether: it's Fabian policy, after all. So, "there is no case for the Commonwealth to renounce its interest in Education or Housing", or anywhere else where there is a "national dimension"! So asserts Mr. Keating. Well, that can be argued.

Why should the Commonwealth interfere with Education? The States can administer Education competently, and did so. There are many trained observers who consider that Australia's Education systems began their decline with Commonwealth interference. With the forced standardisation of higher education, for example, goes the loss of initiative and excellence, and pride, of individual centres of higher learning. You'll never get this through to a Fabian.

With political and economic centralisation comes the opportunity for the centralists to push through their radical social "reforms". How about Aboriginal Affairs? How about environmental legislation? How about all the Mickey Mouse legislation based on United Nations Treaties? There's no way Australia would be down the degeneracy road, as far as it is in 1991, if Big Brother (Commonwealth) had not steamrollered the States.

How about Immigration? Look what Mr. Keating and his Fabian mates have done to Australia! They aren't even giving Australia their first loyalty, albeit they would deny this, and with sincerity. The Fabians' first loyalty is to an international ideal a Utopian dream of One World, with a World Government, and a comfortable equality for all (whatever that means). Through their actions in developing this dream, they believe that they are acting in Australia's best interests.

There's something so horribly familiar about this type of approach to issues. It is called deception: the end justifies the means, and it is Satanic. These people are deceived, and are dangerous. They should not have any political power. So what Paul Keating is on about is his "appeal" to the hard-line socialist ideologues of "Labor" to keep the Fabian Flag fluttering at the masthead. Don't sell out the ship, comrades, and all that sort of stuff.

By implication, Mr. Hawke is abandoning true "Labor" ideals. Will it persuade the Caucus? We wouldn't give it much of a chance; but then! Meanwhile two State Premiers are allying themselves with Paul Keating against the move to decentralise (partially) taxation powers. Mr. John Bannon, of South Australia, doesn't want a State income tax: too many problems (how did those States cope for 40 years?). Mrs. Kirner, of Victoria, doesn't like the idea. She says that States would compete against each other to have a lower tax rate, leading to an erosion of State services.

Our comment on Mrs. Kirner's thinking is that it would be an excellent idea to have the States competing to have a lower tax rate, and the sooner it began, the better. Why should this automatically lead to a reduction of State services? After all, there is such a thing as efficiency. No, we can't see here and now that there is anything like a resolution of the Hawke versus Keating conflict on the horizon. That brings back again the prospect of a federal election next year: Mr. Hawke may be forced to dispose of Mr. Keating (politically) by leading Labor to victory once more, thus neutralising his adversary. What will Dr. Hewson be doing then? What will be the intensity of the recession in six months or so from now? What a scenario!

THUGS AND HYPOCRITES

"The Commonwealth meeting ended with the Harare Declaration, a lofty statement of support for democracy and human rights. But one of the men who signed it was President-for-Life Banda. Alongside him in Harare sat the military rulers of Nigeria and Ghana, the brutal President of Kenya, Daniel arap Moi, and several other leaders of one party states." - Peter Wilson, in Harare.: Herald-Sun, October 24th.

Peter Wilson pulls no punches. In Harare (formerly Salisbury, Rhodesia) President Moi told Mr. Hawke he was not against multi-party politics, but in Kenya he warns that supporters of multi-party democracy will be hunted like rats. There is regular torture of opponents. The Harare Declaration has no provisions for monitoring human rights: the Declaration a disappointment to human rights campaigners. It now appears that the end of the Cold War is ending the (political) toleration of brutal regimes, of Left or Right, just for expediency. President Moi, of Kenya, says that he is losing friends after the fall of Communism. Some tyrants and dictators were formerly welcomed by the West as non-Communists: now that is changing. The phasing out of apartheid in South Africa is robbing the Commonwealth of its prime unifying issue (South Africa bashing...O.T.). Peter Wilson observes that the 50 nations of the Commonwealth now must decide whether to remain an expensive talk shop or come up with some real progress.

KARL STILL LEAVES HIS MARXISTS

This is the heading of an article in the Herald-Sun (Melbourne), October 28th. It is from A.A.P. journalist, Geoff Spencer

Many supporters must have asked themselves, as we have: "What about all the dedicated Marxists in our media and in academia? What will they believe in now? Their philosophical base has been cut from under them by the collapse of Communism in Easter Europe". Is Marxism crumbling in Australian universities? It hardly seems so.
"Introductory Marxist Theory 101" is a prominent entry in courses for intending graduates in 1992. There are many pro-Marx "lines" now being taken by long-time Marxist academics. One University of W.A. politics professor has stated, "As a critic of modern society Marx still has a lot to say. He is wrong about an awful lot. But then we are all wrong about an awful lot"… A University of N.S.W. lecturer states "Marxism courses have increasingly become courses about what is wrong with capitalism"... "The idea of Marxism leading to an alternative has just been quietly jettisoned."

A reader in politics at the University of Melbourne has it this way---"There have been a lot of people who've invested a lot in being highly critical of capitalism while, advocating neo-communist or socialist solutions for society".... "A lot of those people are still around. As far as I can tell hardly any of them seem to be embarrassed whereas they should be. "They've simply redefined their concerns in different ways... (e.g.) they have become critics of capitalism from the green point of view"…

Does the demise of Communism force the abandonment of Marx's teaching? A Flinders University academic (who seems pro-Marxist, still, to us... O.T.) said that Marx, himself, warned that if the conditions were not ripe for revolution, attempts to establish socialism would fail. This, he says, has been proven by the failure of communism in Eastern Europe... Marx will be discredited by association...a superficial view.

According to this line, Marx was really right all along: people, regimes have misinterpreted, misunderstood, Marx. Fidel Castro, in Cuba, is not giving up any of his power and position. No way. He's sticking to Marx. Very many of the Old Guard in Marxist regimes around the world will "stick with Marx" to retain their power and position. The Serbian Army is still Marxist-led: the leadership of the Serbian Army in Yugoslavia (or what was Yugoslavia) wants a Marxist Greater Serbia… It may take generations for the Marxist virus to lose its virulence in world affairs.

BRIEF COMMENT

GOVERNMENT MAY TAX AUSSIE HOMES

As the current finance-economic systems of the West (and elsewhere, e.g. Japan) move further towards inevitable collapse, the various governments of such nations must "scrape the barrel" even more keenly, in order to raise revenue to - even if nothing else - service ever-growing debts. We advise supporters that, in our opinion, the time is not all that far off when the liquidity (cash) shortage will become so acute that "traditional" family assets, such as the family home, will, actually, lose value. Incredible? Yes, indeed, incredible. But it will most probably happen. Why? Because there will be insufficient liquidity in the economy, principally because of enormously growing debt for growing numbers of people to purchase a family home. The situation can be likened to a clogged drainpipe: the "liquidity" can't pass through it because it is clogged with unrepayable debt, and the intended result (e.g. purchase of a home) will not occur.

With the above in mind, we reprint an article from the Northern Territory News (October 22nd), the heading of which is given above. This is an article written (regularly it seems) under the pseudonym, "Alcorta Opinion"
"Home owners be warned: there is a concerted push to tax you out of your home. "Unless you fight back there is nothing more certain than these two new taxes will be introduced very soon. "The first is a tax on the sale of your family home. "The second is a tax on the rent you are not paying. "The combination of both will destroy the Australian dream, but the ideologues now whiteanting the nation' s middle class do not care.

"For the first time economic rationalists and authoritarian left wingers have joined hands to ensure the most precious possession Australians have - their home - is under serious threat. "In view of the economic rationalists, Australians spend far too much money buying or renovating homes. "This is the money, they say, which should be put into a much more productive investment, like plant and equipment or new manufacturing industry. "The only way to stop Australians from being home 'junkies' is by taxing them out of their habit.

"Their reasoning is simple. "The billions of dollars Australians save or borrow to buy houses must be channeled into other investment which will make the nation grow. "Homes are especially unproductive. "After they are built they do not become factories or financial exchange centres. "They just sit there, using up an enormous proportion of the nation's limited pool of funds. "Furthermore, economic rationalists say, it does not make sense to treat the family home any differently from other capital investments for taxation purposes..

Homes are a tax rort
"Not only should they attract capital gains tax on sale but there should also be a tax on imputed rent. "The second one needs careful explanation because it is even more dangerous than taxing the sale of your own home. "It means that home owners who have paid off their mortgages and are looking forward to some years of peace and tranquility will be hounded out of their homes and their savings will be confiscated. "This is how it works. "If tax on imputed rent is implemented the Tax Office will assess the value of renting your home. If it is $200 a week this will be counted as income and taxed as such. "What it means is that you would be deemed (our emphasis...O.T.) to have earned $10,000 a year. "If that falls within the marginal tax bracket, you will be required to pay about $5,000 to the tax commissariat. "God help you, if, through many years of effort and sacrifice you have actually paid off a home in a good suburb that might attract a rent of, say, $300 or $400 a week, which is not an unusual amount nowadays.

What if you can't pay?
"Should the situation come to that, of course, your home could be sold from under you. "Economic rationalists believe that taxing' people out of home ownership will lead to a more efficient and productive Australia. "And leftwing ideologues love the thought because it closes the redistributive cycle. "They are well aware that while people are able to hide their money away from the tax man by putting it into their homes, the 'sharing' and 'compassionate' society they seek (in reality a coercive authoritarian and much poorer society) is not possible.

"There have been any number of submissions from various organisations almost invariably dominated or run by left wingers to tax home ownership. "Their reasoning is always couched along the lines: 'lucky' home owners should help the growing number of 'unlucky' homeless. "How is it done? "By raising billions of dollars through new taxes to build vast public housing estates. "We seem to have learnt nothing from the Marxist experiment elsewhere.

"Of course, many of the proponents of the tax on homes, particularly those on the ideological left, will argue that Australia is not a highly taxed country in international terms. They will quote figures put out by vested interests, self-promoting bodies and various politicians showing that Australian taxpayers are not faring badly in comparison with, say, Japanese or German taxpayers. "The top marginal rate in Australia, they will say, is 48.25%. "This compares favourably with Japan's 50%, or Germany's 53%. "They will also say that on an average income of $25,000 the Australian rate is 18.8%, not very different from the German 18.6%, the United States 17%, and way below the United Kingdom 25% (sourced from the Ernst & Young "Worldwide Personal Tax Guide 1991", quoted in 'Focus to be on average wage earner', Weekend Australian, October 19th, 1991).

"What they do not say is that in Australia you pay a near-the-top marginal rate of 47% on incomes above $36,000 and the top rate of 48.25% if you earn more than $50,000. "On equivalent Australian dollars you pay marginal rates of 53% only on incomes above $90,000 in Germany and $188,679 in Japan. "Australia's taxation system is totally out of kilter with the rest of the worlds because the marginal rate is much higher and it applies to reasonably modest salaries. "Look at international comparisons for an example.

"On equivalent salaries, Australia's marginal rates of 38% are only 15% in Hong Kong, 26% in Germany, 10% in Japan, 14% in Singapore, 28% in the U.S., and 25% in the U.K. "The comfortable furphy that Australia is not a highly taxed country should be put to rest quickly. "We are taxed to death. "And unless Australia's great middle class, the home owning, law abiding, decent hard working middle class -- traditionally the backbone of the nation -- is prepared to fight back, it will become the most endangered of the country."