“Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
“That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed.
“It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.”
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.
A few weeks ago I hit on a great money making scheme where I go round to people’s houses, knock on the door and tell the person that they owe me $20 bucks and if they don’t pay up when I come back I’m going to toss a brick through their window.
My wife did suggest that she thought that this might be illegal but as she’s no lawyer, I thought it best to get legal advice and, according to the advice I received it would be illegal to throw a brick through their window but, as I hadn’t actually done it there was no problem there. Of course, demanding money that they didn’t owe could be considered fraud but, as I had no evidence that they didn’t owe it, I’d have to say that it can’t be considered illegal unless they can prove that they don’t owe me the money. I didn’t ask the lawyer about the threats to their window, so I’m a little unsure as to whether that’s legal or not.
So, as you see, I have the all clear to continue.
Yes, I have been following the Robodebt Royal Commission. Not closely, mind you, but enough to notice a consistent pattern of: “No, nobody actually thought about the legality… or rather nobody was sure… and nobody was authorised to actually think… and I certainly didn’t do anything that I knew was wrong… Ah, yes, that is my handwriting suggesting we change the word there and, no, I can’t imagine why I’d want to change that completely clear statement to something ambiguous…”
And while the Robodebt testimony sounds like it’s been scripted by Joseph Heller (writer of Catch-22), I think it’s important to pause and to remember that people died. Maybe it wasn’t as high as the highest estimates, and maybe we can all just take comfort – as Alan Tudge did – by reminding ourselves that nobody can really know that it was the demand for an enormous sum of money that led to their suicide… And maybe Alan Tudge was always going to resign and that the public embarrassment he became had nothing to do with it.
Juxtaposition can be quite exquisite sometimes and I’d have to say that there’s something worthy of a satirical show like “Utopia” when the Liberals are resurrecting the slogan, “When Labor run out of money, they come after yours,” at a time that it’s been shown that Morrison, Tudge, Porter and all were actually coming after people’s money because they had, in fact, failed to deliver the promised budget surplus “in their first year and every year after.”
As a side-note, it’s always intrigued me that the party that argues that money is better in the hands of people, also argue that it’s better when the government takes more back in revenue than it gives back in services, but there you go!
So now that there are rumours that there may be some changes to the taxation benefits to people with superannuation balances of over $3 million, it’s Labor who’ve run out money and not the Liberals who doubled the debt BEFORE Covid hit and tripled it after. No, Labor have run out of money and they’re looking to raise revenue to balance the budget! Outrageous. The Liberals never worry about balancing it; they just tell us that they intend to because that’s what good housekeepers do.
Of course, their success in 2019 probably makes them think that talking about tax grabs is a great move and that we’ll all just go, “Yeah, those thieving bastards trying to take my super”, but the big difference here is that in 2019, there were a range of things that they could attack. The Coalition managed to argue that changes to negative gearing were going to lead to a crash in property prices but houses weren’t going to get cheaper for first home buyers. Franking credits were going to take away from Nanna’s meagre income from shares and she was going to lose $150,000 in franking credits thanks to Labor. And, with their insistence that we all ruin our weekends by buying an electric vehicle, Nanna would have to sell her house – at a loss – and move in with you.
While all that made a coherent, well-laid out attack on the Labor Opposition, the big difference with the rumoured superannuation changes is that once they do it, the capacity for a scare campaign is significantly dulled. Yes, reality doesn’t stop people from attempting to scare you, but most people aren’t going to be too worried about being taxed if their super hits $3 million. It’s like telling someone to rip up their lotto ticket because, if they win the record jackpot, they won’t be eligible for the aged pension or unemployment benefits if they lose their job.
Yes, a lot of people with super balances of $3 million plus will be telling you that it’s a bad thing and that the pushback will make Labor backdown, but I suspect that it won’t lead to the sort of hit in the polls that the Liberals romp home in Aston.
Speaking of Aston, I heard a clip from Roshena Campbell where she referred to independent candidates “squatting” in Liberal electorates. I suppose she realises that once a “squatter” has been in a place long enough they can claim it through adverse possession.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
