Chris; Ok what I'm trying to get at is this:

MRRT is the backdrop to Company Tax cuts, as is the drop of revenue from its dilution. Thus controversy between Labor and the Greens. Given a shared interest between Labor and the Greens on distributive justice (well you'd hope so anyway)the form Carbon Tax implementation takes could be crucial in narrowing differences over the Company Tax cut. But whatever Labor does must also be influenced by the need to maintain credibility as a partner for negotiations.

If the Company Tax cut goes ahead, but the Greens are upset that the loss of revenue will be a loss for the welfare state/social wage - further reform could address this. (the example I give is half dividend imputation) And it could also address Greens worries about a diminishing pool of money for social programs.

Spending on social programs is another side to the distributive justice debate. Other aspects include economic democracy and labour market law - But I'm not aiming to discuss everything in this article.

*Early implementation* is important because without certainty a largely negative debate will drag on which distracts from other issues. It's hard to move on to a broader agenda while this is the case. Uncertainty over the size and nature of the tax, and of compensation - is hurting the government. Debate and consultation are necessary if we're to avoid the situation that developed with the RSPT - but given this situation (discontent over uncertainty on the Carbon Tax) I'd be aiming for the end of the year rather than mid-next year.

Returning to the Carbon Tax - what is crucial is the manner of implementation. Achieving distributive justice, here, could be crucial in winning over a sufficiently large electoral bloc to maintain government.

BTW thanks for welcoming me back :) - I've mainly been focusing on my PhD lately - but it's good to address a current debate here for a change. I have my blog too - but it's good to reach so many more people here at OLO.

AARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!
Carbon tax, mining tax, rich tax.
Oh look we've got billions and billions of dollars to spend! Yippee!

Do you think this money just appears out of thin air?
Do you think these companies and individuals live in some sort of *cocoon* detached from the rest of society?

If you take, take, take from them, they have less to invest in expanding their businesses, employing more workers.

Do you not think that the increased cost of higher taxes and superannuation are not going to be passed onto the *consumer* (the battlers) through higher prices?

Soak the rich and the poor might get their schools and hospitals, but they also pay more for cornflakes and shoes and lipstick and everything else.

"As for right-wing commentators such as Miranda Devine: do they suppose the same is true in the case of most tax 'reforms' – including the gradual ‘flattening’ of income tax – which historically have redistributed wealth from low and middle income groups to the wealthy?"

The poor's taxes aren't paid to the rich.
What an absurd statement.
The poor's (and the rich's) taxes pay for services the rich don't even use!
But the rich's taxes pay more, even at a flat rate, simply because they have higher income in the first place.
Even with a flat tax, the rich would pay most of it and use less public services.

And carbon taxes will just lead to offshoring to countries that lack those taxes and environmental regulations.
Our economy suffers and the global environment still gets polluted anyway.

Tristan,

I feel the left, including yourself, has important things to say about the redistribution of wealth. Always will.

However, I do not think much will be achieved by what is going on, whether carbon tax and/or mining tax.

The world economy is now so competitive and interlinked that trends may even get worse from your perspective.

The other scenario is that more and more Westerners realise the limitations of freer trade and adjust their policies accordingly to find a better balance that does not destroy trade but gives greater attention to national needs.

I am hoping that the latter will prevail, although some pain will need to be accepted by society as whole.

I hope to elaborate upon this in my next piece about Australian liberalism.

Chris; send me a message at facebook when your article is published and I'll take a look. It's a topic I'm interested in.

Shockadelic - Wait until you're on a public hospital waiting list for a couple of years in pure agony - to provide the slack for the wealthy to engage in conspicuous consumption; Wait until you're in your mid-late 80s and spend the last few years of your life in an understaffed facility, living in conditions of pure indignity, without enough nurses to turn you or take you to the toilet, with rotten food - and no variability in terms of your diet or your environment (not even a garden) - and all to pay for tax cuts for that top strata that is supposed to 'create wealth' - after you've been working all your life... (and now society 'cannot afford' your human dignity)

Tristan Ewins - WOW! What a Labor, Socialist spin-doctor. Love the way you're using OLO to give advice to our Fed government. Hope Julia's listening.

'Shadow Minister' and Chris Lewis have put it nicely, and 'Shockadelic' hit a home run. They have answered your proposition far more succinctly and gently than I ever could.

It is all very well to have ideals of using taxation more effectively to serve the best interests of the nation and its populace, but it is essential to get it right, and to be fair. For, fairness and equity are foundations of our democracy, and, industry is the engine of wealth enabling Oz to enjoy enviable freedoms and security for all.

Your psychedelic meanderings through how to distribute the nation's wealth presuppose that all will be business as usual, in spite of your proposed draconian tax-hikes, and that business, self-funded retirees and working contributors to Super Funds (who all stand to lose greatly from your propositions) are going to sit back and cop it. Increase super contributions, but remove ethically correct imputation. One negates the other. Hit all shareholders, because they must be wealthy. No, they couldn't be working Super contributors could they? Rubbish.

The sole objective of your piece is your idea of a road-map for Labor to succeed and improve its position at the next Fed election - with a subtext to squash Tony Abbott and the Coalition's chances of taking over. And I really hope Labor might take some notice, for that would almost certainly ensure that Labor will get its just desserts and be soundly turfed out on its ear.

Carbon tax - just a tax grab. I knew that. Pity the poor deluded who think it may have something to do with reducing emissions.

Mining tax - milk the cash cow while you can. Pity about West Africa digging a big hole in our exports, taking our jobs, losing all that Super, decimating our equities and Super Funds. Too bad, eh?

Get a life, Tristan.

Tristan
I was interested to see you criticise the injustice caused to the poor under so-called "progressive" taxation, because this confirms the theory of the libertarian Austrian school of economics, that government's economic interventions produce unintended negative outcomes that are worse from the standpoint of the interventionists themselves.

Tell me, do you think the result you criticise is worse than it would be in the absence of such progressivity, that is, if you actually respected the principle of equality under law?