The deal that could balance the government’s books as well as our own

Dr Bronwyn Kelly writes of a “new social deal” that would tax people, but also commit the government, through fair regulation, to ensuring that no one falls into poverty and that enough is spent on the services we deem necessary.

AFTER PAULINE HANSON last address To the National Press Club (NPC), pollster and political analyst Kos Samaras wisely encouraged to observe:

“Every policy is essentially a transaction. You offer something to people and you ask for votes in return.”

Same articlehe was also insightful about how to diagnose it. Pauline Hanson In his own words, he may have targeted the very voters whose support he sought. “politics of extraction” – A policy that promises ordinary people (especially those living in cities) no gain, only loss.

In this context, Pauline Hanson is just one of many politicians under neoliberalism who design all their policy proposals to imply that loss is inevitable, but that there will be no loss for some groups in society if we reduce or eliminate certain benefits for other groups – for example, rights for the unemployed and immigrants, workers’ wages, and services essential to well-being such as childcare and disability services.

Somehow, when Pauline Hanson speaks as she does in the NPC, we are supposed to infer that the loss of benefits she promises to some may result in the transfer of benefits to someone else. But none of us can be sure that we will be among the lucky beneficiaries, if any.

Nor can we be sure that we will like what we can get if we become beneficiaries. Ultimately, there isn’t much on offer other than the sense that things will turn out well for some if (and only if) others, including indigenous Australians in particular, are forced to miss the opportunity. This is a pessimistic policy.

But what if the political process could be organized from the other side? What kind of deals might we end up with if society, rather than politicians, designed them? Can we reduce the influence of those who rely on the “politics of exclusion” for our votes?

Can we save ourselves and our governments from neoliberal austerity? Can we reverse the trends? real wage losses How much pain have we suffered in the last 25 years? Can we reduce the number of people who have to lose in order to win?

Can we really design a deal where everyone wins and no one has to lose?

Frankly speaking, the answer to all these questions is yes.

In fact, in any political system where ordinary people can organize to negotiate how to get what everyone wants and needs, an agreement can be made that can work in the people’s favor by changing the terms of political transactions. People can initiate an agreement that will clearly benefit everyone; and then they can look around to see which politicians are happy to accept this trade.

Instead of a politician offering us something (usually something very small and with no guarantee) and then asking for our vote in return, we can tell politicians what we will accept in a transaction we can design to benefit us all.

Such an agreement in a rich society is not at all impossible if we put our minds to it fairly. In fact, we have benefited from such agreements in the past when politicians decided to propose them, such as the agreement made in the 1980s in the 1980s. Prices and Incomes Reconciliation between hawke/Keating Government and unions reach agreement to rebuild Medicare and a social safety net in exchange for wage moderation.

So where would be the best place to start in the 21st century context with the cost of living issue that has now become too difficult for many to escape?

After decades of embedded neoliberalism and real wage declines, arguably the most effective deal that can be made today is for ordinary people to take the initiative themselves to devise an explanation of what they are prepared to trade in exchange for paying taxes for public spending on the welfare and services that are vital to us all.

Recent research in Commonwealth of Australia Future Planning (ACFP) suggested that this type of trade might best be developed as something we might call a “new social agreement” that people could design and then present to the government, effectively turning the tables on how political transactions occur.

The ACFP suggested that Australians could design this agreement by allowing them to enter into new arrangements for the fair payment of taxes in exchange for two types of guaranteed security:

First, a universal basic income guarantee for everyone at or above the poverty line (tax-free and for life; no questions asked except for proof of citizenship, permanent residence or eligibility to apply for residency); And

A second guarantee that the government will spend whatever we need on the services we deem essential to our well-being and community cohesion.

This kind of deal is entirely reasonable and affordable because it realigns how we achieve income security (on a permanent basis and for everyone) while also gaining the certainty that governments will not rely on austerity to balance their books.

The agreement could eliminate the need for austerity. This is because it binds people to taxation in a fair manner and at the same time obliges the government to ensure that no one falls into poverty and that adequate amounts are spent on services that we deem necessary for the health, safety and honest survival of all.

Such an agreement could balance both the government’s accounts and ours. This is probably the only deal that can do this.

This social new deal makes much more sense than agreements that propose to reduce taxes and services. These second agreements are agreements that no one can win, not even the government. They eliminate security for almost everyone.

These are the kinds of deals we have been constrained by neoliberalism for the last three decades or more, but they have only deepened our financial insecurity and reduced accessibility to health, education, housing and aged care services. Soon these austerity policies may spread to disabled people.

In contrast, a social new deal could save both people and politicians from these net loss transactions. This makes the policy of subtraction unnecessary because such an agreement need not be designed to take something from one group and give it to another. It doesn’t need to be designed to create winners and losers.

There is no need for one group to confront another. There is no need to disrupt social integrity.

Of course, it all comes down to design, and admittedly, communities are just as capable of designing bad and unfair deals as governments.

But regular options are available to maximize the chances of a fair deal on taxes, benefits and basic services. To this end, ACFP is also a Australian Public Interest Collaboration.

If we want to ensure that we design a deal that benefits everyone, we will need to create a democratic program of cooperation that aims to secure the well-being, incomes and all the services necessary for the well-being of all Australians.

Such an agreement is possible, and we should expect it to be readily adopted by any well-intentioned politician. Find out how to organize an Australian Public Interest Collaboration here.

Dr Bronwyn Kelly is the Founder of Australian Community Future Planning (ACFP). He specializes in long-term integrated planning for Australia’s society, environment, economy and democracy, and governance systems for nation states.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.