Ok, I suppose most of you have heard about the Federal Government’s submission to the minimum wage case. Apparently, heaps of these low-paid workers “are often found in high-income households”. (By that I presume that the government meant that they were members of the household and not just the cleaning lady or a burglar or someone who’d wandered in off the street!) Of course, when I say, “heaps” that’s because, like Senator Cash, I don’t want to put a number on it. The reason for that is very simple! I’ve no idea what the number is. But that doesn’t stop me – or Senator Cash – telling everyone that putting up the minimum wage would just be transferring wealth from those hard-up employers to high income families because let’s be real, it’s probably just uni students. And we all know that uni students live with their wealthy parents, right? I mean, poor people can’t afford to go to university any more, so it’d be outrageous to give a boost to the minimum wage because it’s just students earning pocket-money so that they can go clubbing on the weekend.
Of course, it’s not just uni students. In some cases, it’s the partner of some high income earner. You know, someone like Malcolm Turnbull earns millions at his job, but someone like Lucy goes out cleaning houses during the week so that she can use her own money to purchase her Prada clothing.
Yes, I like this principle that we should consider what the overall income of the household might be when we consider the implications of our decisions.
With that in mind, I’ve prepared this humble little submission for the Senate in their deliberations this week.
When considering whether or not to pass the proposed company tax cuts, I would like you to consider the fact that many of the people benefitting from these are often found in high-income households. I don’t have the figure, ok, but it’s not as simple as that. And I don’t know why the income of anyone else in the house has any relevance when making a decision like this, but I reckon if it’s good enough for one submission then it’s good enough for another.