As I look at the current state of the economy from my spot as a boomer who has largely lived my life in times of peace and easy excess, it is becoming clear to me that there are two tracks at work.
The first is the one along which is driving those who work for a wage, pay taxes in the absence of choice, and struggle to feed, house and educate the kids. In the decreasing incidence of the traditional nuclear family, both parents tend to work, often multiple jobs, and seemingly get nowhere.
The second is those who own stuff. Specifically, property and shares. They are doing OK in the enormous inflation of price that has occurred.
The problem for our society and the glue of community is that the latter group are living on what economists call ‘rent’.
Income from ‘rent’ comes from what you own, rather than what you produce. In the absence of producing greater income ‘producing’ than from ‘owning’ you get what we have now, a two-speed economy.
It further seems to me that the system is weighted towards those who own, so can charge rent. Our tax system and increasingly education system which is the gateway to ownership is increasingly weighted towards ‘rental’ at the expense of ‘production’ by those in control. The controlling group are themselves renters, and so set the rules favourable to them, rather than being equitable to all.
This is not a simple challenge for us to address. It has been a long time in the making, and will be a long time in the fixing, which makes it unlikely to be fixed in the absence of strong political leadership that is able and willing to look beyond the current electoral cycle.
The economic problem posed by renters is that they tend to double down on what is producing the income today. In other words, optimising the short term at the expense of the long term, which is messy, uncertain, and therefore subject to greater risk. Risk minimisation is core to a renters mindset. That is why small enterprises are more innovative and less risk averse, they have much less to lose, and are reaching for the point where they can become renters, a much easier life.
When looked at through such a lens, the source of the current malaise in this country is obvious. Too many renters, owning way more than their ‘fair share’ of the largess we have inherited.
I wonder what constitutes a ‘fair share’? This is not something you can legislate, and in any event, the legislature is controlled by renters, so no joy there. In a democracy, we the great unwashed are supposed to be able to bring about change via the ballot box, but that seems unlikely in the short term. Again, the game is rigged to exclude anything other than very gradual change from the edges, and that is too hard for the renters to think about and accept the minor risk it might entail. The outcome of the last federal election when the Labor party put a few anti renter ideas on the table, they were scuppered. To my mind this was the result of incredibly poor marketing rather than the ideas being lousy.
I am first and foremost a strategist, one who looks at the big picture and articulates the principals by which the resource allocation and tactical decisions are made. As such, I propose two principals by which the foundations of our economy, and therefore the society we should be aiming for are sourced.
-
- Education. Make this more accessible to all, from preschool to advanced tertiary, and everything in between. We need not only the scientists, doctors, and managers, that make the industries and services we want work, but the plumbers and toolmakers who actually make things that produce income. It is that latter group that have been killed off by policy decisions based on something other than the long term good of the community.
- Funding. It is a simple matter that the aspiration above needs to be paid for, somehow. Increasingly the tax burden is supported by the ‘workers’ while the renters get a pass. This simply must change. Not a proposition easily accepted by those who will ‘lose’. It will be resisted with all the resources at the disposal of the renters, and their allies. First target should be the multinational corporations that infest our industries, who reduce their tax, legally, to close to zero by a mix of entirely legal strategies, usually involving transfer payments to head offices domiciled in places where the rates are lower. This is an international problem, not just ours, so the benefit is that others need our cooperation as much as we need theirs, and the economies of the Bahamas and Cook Islands can be assisted in other ways to play their role in a fairer world economy. Then there are multiple soft targets in our domestic tax system that need to be progressively addressed so the balance is reweighted towards those making, at the expense of those renting.
We need to share the largess of the golden goose more widely by re-weighting the distribution of the gold, rather than the ownership of the goose.
It is Sunday morning, and clearly, I am dreaming!
