Carbon Tax package finally unveiled

However, Abbott and right-populist elements of the media are raising alarm at the prospect of even mild redistribution via the chosen structures for compensation, via direct payments and a restructuring of the tax system.

On July 11^th the Herald-Sun ran the headline '"Kick in the Teeth for Hard Workers," referring to a family on a combined annual income of around $130,000.

Another article in the same Herald-Sun supplement concerned "Sparkie," Luke Peterson, who earns $150,000, with his partner remaining at home to raise their children. In this instance the headline ran: "Punished for wife staying at home with kids."

Like several previous articles in the Herald-Sun accusing the Gillard Labor of a 'Class War,' these articles attempted at the same time to portray higher income groups as average working Australians' being 'punished' for effort. Indeed the term "Sparkie" could be interpreted as a colloquialism inferring working class status.

But both the households considered in the Herald-Sun articles concerned at least the top 20% of household incomes. A single-income household with one income-earner bringing in a $150,000/year income would not be considered by most as 'working class' – colloquialisms aside. Indeed, in this day and age few households servicing a mortgage and raising a family can afford for one partner to remain at home.

This raises the question that if action must be taken on climate change, how should we balance the burden? The principle concerned could also be extended to other necessities including, the provision of health care, education, aged care, social housing, welfare and infrastructure.

Many Australians work hard for comparatively little return compared to the Herald-Sun's chosen examples. There are some dual-income households, with members employed in cleaning, retail, childcare, hospitality, textiles, and manufacturing, who bring in barely $50,000 before tax.

To speak of 'punishment for effort' for higher income households, and yet to prefer putting a disproportionate burden upon thesefamilies, would be revealing of the priorities and values of those concerned.

In the labour market scarce skills usually bring in greater return, but many of these lower income individuals and households work under unpleasant and alienating circumstances, and with sometimes inconvenient or onerous hours.

Also, in Australia there is a recent history of falling minimum wages being compounded by housing market stress, past regressive restructure of tax, and increased energy costs as a consequence of privatisation. It is not at all radical, or necessarily 'socialist,' to support a degree of redistribution to compensate those Australian workers and pensioners affected by these trends.

And while there has to be incentives for workers to acquire skills, other 'middle income,' 'average' individuals and households also deserve a 'fair go.'

A worker on a wage of, say, $50,000/year should not be paying the same kind of tax as a worker on $150,000/year. Under circumstances where both workers were applying themselves with comparable levels of effort and effective sacrifice, skill differentials alone do not justify massive discrepancies in income.