Latest news with #redistribution
ABC News
5 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Why an electoral boundary review may have major impacts for Queensland voters and politicians
A shake up is on the way for Queensland politics. There's an electoral boundary review hanging over the heads of the state's politicians. The redrawing of an MP's electorate can end their careers or make a once comfortably held seat a knife edge fight to retain. According to a new discussion paper released by the redistribution commission, over a third of seats in state parliament face the prospect of some sort of change. That's because they either have too many or too few people living in their boundaries – or they are projected to at some point in the next seven years. For a seat to be out of quota, they have to be either 10 per cent above or below the average number of voters in each seat. As it currently stands, 14 of the state's 93 electorates are already out of quota, which means they must change during this redistribution. The most high-profile of the MPs on this list is Opposition Leader Steven Miles, with his seat of Murrumba, north of Brisbane, about 18.8 per cent above quota. With its population only set to grow further, the seat will need to shrink. Labor isn't too worried about changes to this district, which it holds with a healthy margin in what is relatively safe territory for the party. But one electorate it does have some concern for is Gaven. It is the only red spot in a sea of blue in the LNP-dominated Gold Coast. It's held by high-profile MP Meaghan Scanlon, who is considered by some as a potential future Labor leader. The seat is already 11.55 per cent below quota and is set to fall further by 2032 — which means change is inevitable. Given Ms Scanlon holds Gaven with a tiny margin of 0.7 per cent, she is already facing a tough fight to retain the seat regardless of the complications a redistribution could bring. When the last redistribution occurred in 2017, it resulted in some major changes. Most notably, the Brisbane seats of Mount Coot-tha and Indooroopilly were abolished — and essentially merged to create the new electorate of Maiwar. Mount Coot-tha was held by Labor's Steven Miles, who was then a rising star in the Palaszczuk government as environment minister. Indooroopilly was held by the LNP's Scott Emerson, who then the shadow treasurer and had previously served as transport minister in the Newman government. Mr Miles elected to leave the area and relocate to the much safer seat of Murrumba in the Moreton Bay region rather than face an uncertain battle in Maiwar. Mr Emerson, however, chose to stay in Maiwar and paid the price, with voters ousting him from parliament. Neither Labor nor the LNP actually ended up winning the new seat, with the Greens clinching it instead. Mr Miles made the right move for his political career and went on to become premier, while the redistribution played a crucial role in Mr Emerson's downfall. Looking back on it now, Mr Emerson acknowledged the changes in boundaries — plus the introduction of compulsory preferential voting in 2017 — cost him his seat. He said he was not willing to move to a safer electorate to save his political career. "In my whole life, I've never been someone who cuts and runs," Mr Emerson said. "This is where I wanted to represent. I knew it was going to be a tough fight. "My view has always been along the lines that I wanted to represent the area where I lived and where my family had grown up and where I had worked in the local community." The seat facing one of the biggest shake ups in the looming redistribution is Coomera on the Gold Coast. It's held by the LNP's Michael Crandon — and is already 37.4 per cent above quota and is set to be a massive 59 per cent over by 2032. It's not just Coomera set to change, but also those electorates located nearby. The redistribution commission says the seat and its surrounding districts will need "significant adjustment". Logan, held by Labor frontbencher Linus Power, is also bursting at the seams — sitting at 27.7 per cent over quota and forecast to hit 51 per cent over within seven years. Jordan MP Charis Mulleun and Bundamba MP Lance McCallum are also facing changes to their Ipswich-based electorates, with both well over quota. The discussion paper says it anticipates "significant boundary changes" will be needed to bring these seats into quota. Among those that are under quota include Oodgeroo in the Redlands, held by the LNP's Amanda Stoker, and Mundingburra in Townsville, held by the LNP's Janelle Poole. Stretton and Toohey on the south side of Brisbane, which are both Labor-held electorates, are also falling well below quota. The projections show even more seats south of the Brisbane River are expected to fall under quota in the next seven years. They include Chatsworth, held by Customer Services Minister Steve Minnikin, as well as Miller, held by Labor's health spokesperson Mark Bailey. The same goes for Labor's Jess Pugh in Mount Ommaney, although the electorate of South Brisbane itself is projected to be 18.2 per cent over quota by 2032. Just because a seat is falling under quota, it doesn't necessarily mean its population is going backwards. It's mainly because it's not growing faster than other parts of the state. Queensland University of Technology adjunct associate professor and former speaker of state parliament John Mickel expects an MP in Brisbane's inner south will be impacted by the redistribution. "There's just not enough votes to go around. Somebody's got to lose a seat in there somewhere," he said. Mr Mickel likened the redistribution process to playing three-dimensional chess due to its complexity and the multiple possible outcomes. "If you lose part of your existing seat and retain the nucleus of your existing seat, you're a chance," he said. He suggested complications arise when MPs pick up large parts of other seats in the redistribution. "Even that is not a true science," he said. "If you're a Labor member, for example, and you get moved into what was a safe National party area, you'll find that you get a swing to you in the area you picked up. "Why? Because if it was safe, you can bet that there wasn't a large campaign mounted in that area and that the personal following is gone."
The Guardian
11-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Why is Labour so afraid to admit that we must tax the rich to help the poor?
After 125 years of practice, Labour ought to be good at saying why resources should be redistributed from the rich to everyone else. Its founding conference in 1900 passed a motion calling for 'a distinct Labour group in Parliament', to collaborate with any party 'promoting legislation in the direct interests' of the working class. Creating a more egalitarian society and politics – which by definition means redistribution from the powerful – was Labour's original purpose. Britain was then, and remains, a highly unequal country: more unequal currently than neighbours such as Ireland, the Netherlands and France. This week the children's commissioner, Rachel de Souza, said that some British children were living in 'almost Dickensian levels of poverty'. But as any expensive but packed restaurant, pavement lined with new Range Rovers or row of smoothly renovated home exteriors will tell you, the rich have been enjoying a long boom in Britain, arguably ever since the Conservatives abolished the top 60% income tax rate 37 years ago. Yet the current Labour government, like others before it, has struggled to devise and promote policies that substantially redistribute wealth. It has proposed or enacted welcome but modest redistributive reforms: removing the tax privileges of non-doms, imposing VAT on private schools, ending the inheritance tax exemption for farmers, removing the winter fuel allowance from wealthier pensioners and reducing the power imbalance between landlords and tenants. But amid the huge controversy these policies have caused – itself a sign of better-off citizens' sense of entitlement – Labour has either made the argument for greater equality too quietly and tentatively, or not at all. This near-silence is surprising in some ways. Populism has familiarised voters again with the idea that elites have too much and the majority too little. Especially in a slow-growing economy, with a government under acute financial strain, politics is often a zero-sum game, where different interests compete for resources. The always revealing British Social Attitudes survey shows that the number of people who believe that 'government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off' has risen slowly but steadily over the past 20 years: from under a third to almost half – not an overwhelming proportion, but twice as large as the one that currently supports Labour. Yet instead of the assertiveness with which the privileged and their media allies defend the status quo, the government uses bland, nonconfrontational, supposedly unifying language, such as 'country first, party second', and 'working people' – rather than the more politically loaded 'working class'. Keir Starmer promises voters more 'security', but without saying that much of today's insecurity is created by employers, and that situation will have to change. Similarly the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, insists that state spending and ordinary people's living standards can be improved by better productivity and economic growth, but without saying that this transformation could also be achieved, or deepened, through a different distribution of income and wealth. It's unrealistic to expect centrist politicians to turn into class warriors. But the absence of redistributive arguments from the government's rhetoric – when it is clearly doing redistributive things – is one of the main reasons this rhetoric seems unconvincing and the government inauthentic. Most voters know Labour is a party that takes from the more privileged to give to those with less – the clue is in the name – so when it pretends otherwise, it can come across as less than honest, and afraid of its enemies. Such evasiveness also means that the ground is not prepared for when redistributive measures, such as tax rises on the rich, can no longer be avoided, because the government needs the money. This autumn's budget may turn out to be such a moment. One explanation for Labour's awkwardness about redistribution lies in the party's most maligned period in office, the mid-1970s. Facing a deep financial crisis it had partly inherited from the Conservatives – a depressingly familiar scenario – Harold Wilson's government imposed a combined income and investment tax rate of 98% on the highest earners. Although tax rates were almost as high under postwar Tory governments, it is Wilson's that remain infamous. Less remembered is the fact that, thanks partly to his tax rises, Britons were more financially equal in the mid-1970s than they had ever been before, and ever have been since. Yet Labour seemingly received no electoral benefit: at the next general election, in 1979, it was comfortably defeated by Margaret Thatcher's anti-egalitarian Conservatives. When Labour returned to office 18 years later, its redistributive policies came heavily disguised. A minimum wage and tax credits for low-paid families were presented as ways to boost the economy and spread the work ethic, rather than also as ways for the wealthy to help the less privileged. Meanwhile, Britain's economic elites received lavish government praise. 'We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich,' said the key New Labour figure Peter Mandelson in 1998, 'as long as they pay their taxes.' This redistribution by stealth worked well as long as the economy and tax revenues grew healthily, which they did for New Labour's first 10 years in power. Meanwhile, difficult distributive issues that the party preferred not to think about – the sharply diverging incomes and wealth of Britons, how this polarisation was deepening social divisions, and how these divisions could not be lessened without confronting elites – were largely avoided. Starmer is governing in much tougher times, just as Gordon Brown did, after New Labour's economic luck finally ran out in the 2008 financial crisis. Brown's government raised the top income tax rate from 40% to 50%. The media response was almost universally hostile, but in the weeks afterwards Labour's position stabilised in the polls, a possible early sign of the 21st century's pro-redistribution shift. This week, speculation that the government will introduce a wealth tax has prompted both strong denials and more ambiguous signals from Downing Street. Some in Labour favour one; others believe that openly egalitarian policies are never wise in what they see as a naturally deferential, hierarchical country. But with the government's shifty approach to redistribution enraging the right without satisfying the left, and leaving less ideological voters believing that the government is just directionless, Labour is in the worst of all worlds. One way out may be to eat the rich, metaphorically speaking, before the rich eat it. Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
20-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Will you pay more council tax to fund the North? Use our tool to find out
Households across southern England that pay less than £2,000 a year in council tax are facing an increase in their bills to fund the North. Angela Rayner is cutting the amount of central government funding that local authorities which set low bills will receive. The Tories accused the Deputy Prime Minister of 'punishing' these councils and putting them under pressure to either cut services or increase council tax to cover the funding shortfall. The changes could lead to bills rising across southern England to enable more money to be sent to northern cities. About half of council income comes from central government, and Labour claims that the way it is shared between councils is unfair. There are 13 councils that charge less than £2,000 a year in council tax, all of them in London. However, town halls can only put up council tax by a maximum of 5 per cent unless a local referendum approves a higher rate, or the Government gives them permission to do so. The plans for what Ms Rayner believes is a 'progressive' redistribution were unveiled in a consultation document published on Friday. It will change the way that central government grants are shared out, based on calculations of what local authorities could raise if all areas charged the same rates of council tax based on their housing mix. The document states: 'The Government is proposing to set a notional council tax level that achieves the objective of full equalisation. 'To fully equalise against the council tax base, we set the notional council tax level at the average Band D level of council tax in England in scope of these reforms (c£2,000 in 2026-27).' The Government will also introduce a new formula for accounting central government funding based on local needs, including population, poverty and age. Ms Rayner believes it is unfair that people living in the North often pay hundreds of pounds more in council tax than those in southern areas. For example, a three-bedroom semi-detached home in Hartlepool generates a council tax bill higher than a 10-bedroom home in Westminster valued at £80 million. The combination of the two changes will mean steep falls in grant income for wealthier councils, mainly in London and the South East, forcing them to either raise council tax rates to make up the shortfall or cut public services. Ms Rayner also unveiled changes to council tax collection to stamp out 'unacceptable, aggressive' practices. To help households manage their finances, she proposes to change council tax billing from 10 months to 12 months. Council tax bills tend to be paid through 10 instalments (from April to January) and the majority of the 25 million council tax bills issued each year in England are paid by this method. But 12 month instalments could help households to spread the cost of their bills over a longer period. The Government is also looking at enforcement processes, including 'a more appropriate and proportionate time frame' before councils can demand a full bill from households. When someone fails to pay council tax, a reminder can be sent seven days after a missed payment. Following that, if the bill remains unpaid seven days after the reminder notice has been issued, the full amount due for the year becomes payable.
Arab News
10-05-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Trump says he's OK with taxing the rich but warns of political fallout
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump said on Friday he was 'OK' with raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, as his fellow Republicans consider scaling back the scope of the ambitious tax-cut package they aim to pass this year. 'Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm OK if they do!!!' Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform. Speaking to reporters later at the White House, Trump gave a stronger endorsement. 'I would love to do it, frankly,' he said in the Oval Office. 'What you're doing is you're giving up something up top in order to make people in the middle income and the lower income brackets save more. So it's really a redistribution, and I'm willing to do it if they want.' Trump, a wealthy businessman with properties all over the world, indicated he would be willing to pay more in taxes himself. 'I would love to be able to give people in a lower bracket a big break by giving up some of what I have.' The Senate's top Republican, John Thune, said he was not enthusiastic about the idea. 'We don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I mean, we're about lowering taxes on Americans,' he said on Fox News. Trump's message comes as US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson weighs whether to reduce the total tax package. Johnson told some House Republicans on Thursday that he is now looking at $4 trillion in tax cuts, rather than an initial $4.5 trillion, according to a Republican aide. Republicans are also fighting over spending cuts needed to pay for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' jeopardizing the goal of making all of the expiring provisions of his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent. Trump privately urged Johnson this week to raise the tax rate and close the carried-interest loophole for Wall Street investors, sources told Reuters on Thursday. The Republican president suggested an increase to 39.6 percent from 37 percent for individuals earning $2.5 million or higher and joint filers earning at least $5 million, with carve-outs for small businesses, one source said. 'I don't think they're going to be doing it, but I actually think it's good politics to do it,' Trump said. Spending cuts to Medicaid and other programs are likely to fall short of a $2 trillion goal over a decade. Johnson and other top Republicans have resisted the idea of raising taxes on the wealthy. But Representative Andy Harris, who chairs the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, said a higher top tax bracket would help pay for the Trump agenda. 'Personally, I've always believed that if we can't find spending reductions elsewhere, we should look at restoring the pre TCJA tax bracket on million dollar income,' the Maryland Republican wrote on X. Trump views higher taxes on the rich as a way to help pay for massive middle and working-class tax cuts, and to protect Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans. But the president warned on Friday that Democrats would seize on 'even a 'TINY' tax increase for the 'RICH,'' citing former Republican President George H.W. Bush, who lost his 1992 re-election bid after breaking his promise not to hike taxes. Trump and Republican lawmakers have cited the potential extension of the 2017 tax cuts as relief for Americans and an economic boost amid Trump's tariffs on imported goods. They have vowed to enact the extension as part of a larger budget bill that would also fund border security, the deportation of undocumented immigrants, energy deregulation and a plus-up in military spending.
