Budget theatrics: the final act

By Maria Millers

The whole theatrics of the Budget: the inevitable strategic leaks, the dramatic lock up of journalists and the performative delivery by both Government and Opposition, flanked by a Greek chorus of the faithful on both sides, has now been played out. The final act will be staged in the Senate.

But the budget debate is not just technical economics. It taps into an old philosophical question: What does a society owe its next generation? That question sits underneath philosophy, poetry, and politics alike and is one of the oldest moral questions humans ask.

Different traditions answer it differently, but most serious philosophies converge on one idea: a society owes the next generation more than mere survival.

At minimum, it owes them the conditions to live as full human beings rather than permanent inheritors of narrowing possibility.

For most, interest in the entrails of the Budget revolves around how it will benefit them or how it will hurt them, depending on their circumstances, age and living conditions. More than likely they will judge it through a personal lens.

Philosophers would, however, judge it through very different lenses, not just on its economic effectiveness but in context of broader questions such as; What is government for? What counts as justice? And central to last week’s Budget: What obligation exists between generations?

Reaching back to the classical tradition, Aristotle would probably approve of its aims of strengthening social cohesion and civic stability and whether the budget promoted the common good.

Aristotle believed extreme inequality destabilised society and at present we are witnessing waves of crimes here and across many countries played out against the growing inequalities and subsequent alienation felt by so many, but particularly our youth.

He was deeply suspicious of societies where wealth concentration destabilised political life. Housing becoming unattainable for younger citizens would likely look to him as corruption of the polis.

For someone like 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, order and stability were all important. He famously said that without a strong government life would “be solitary, poor, nasty and brutish and short,” a line often misquoted by students by placing British in place of brutish. Living in unsettling times like us, Hobbes cared primarily about order and stability.

He would have supported fiscal management that prevents social breakdown, state intervention that reduces generational anger, and policies preventing political and social fragmentation.

The Utilitarians on the other hand were philosophers who argued that morality should be judged primarily by consequences – specifically by how much happiness, wellbeing, or reduction of suffering an action produces.

Their core idea is often summarised as: The greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism became one of the most influential moral and political philosophies of the modern world, shaping economics, public policy, law, and welfare systems.

Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mills and John Locke were its chief proponents. Bentham’s utilitarian test is simple: he believed that pain and pleasure govern our lives. But he would have wanted more empirical evidence on say the Budget’s initiatives to improve housing affordability and availability Does it maximise and aggregate happiness? And he would pose the question; Do more people benefit than suffer

He would not care much about tradition or investor expectations if the net welfare gain is positive.

Fellow Utilitarian John Stuart Millis is surprisingly relevant today because he supported markets, but also inheritance taxation. He would likely view: housing speculation, and tax distortions favouring passive asset gains as economically and morally unhealthy.

Mill’s liberalism believed societies should progress morally and institutionally rather than merely preserve inherited arrangements. So, he would have probably supported: reforms increasing social mobility,

Alfred Tennyson’s poem Ulysses reflects this sentiment: “To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

For John Locke property was justified if acquired through labour and when enough remained for others. He might have become uneasy if inherited tax advantages permanently lock younger people out of ownership. Still, he would worry about: excessive state interference, and retroactive punishment of investors.

If Karl Marx was asked about the Budget he would not see it as structural transformation Marx would regard housing crises as inevitable in asset-based capitalism, where shelter is viewed not just a human right but as a financial asset. He would say that governments intervene mainly to preserve legitimacy and he would interpret tax reforms, migration policies and housing initiatives through the lens of maintaining capitalist accumulation

Contemporary philosopher John Rawls is probably the philosopher most aligned with the Budget’s moral framing.

For John Rawls, justice requires that life chances should not depend overwhelmingly on accidents of birth He would undoubtedly view the proposed reforms in the Budget as a step in the right direction, a fair starting point. For Rawls society owes the next generation genuine access to education without life crippling debt, political equality and fair access to basics like housing and healthcare.

A society becomes unjust when inheritance outweighs effort and young people are locked out of the social contract This is why housing has become morally central, affecting whether people can imagine a future at all.

He believes we have a duty to future generations. Poet Seamus Heaney captures this in The Cure at Troy:

History says, Don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up

Rawls would most likely view the Budget as ethically justified and probably overdue, though perhaps too cautious.

Harvard professor the late Robert Nozic would be one of the sharpest critics of the Budget He believed redistributive taxation is morally suspect if it violates legitimately acquired property rights. He would likely oppose: targeted penalties on investors, and state attempts to engineer social outcomes. To Nozick, even desirable social goals do not automatically justify coercive redistribution.

His views would align with the many property investors who feel they are unfairly targeted for working hard.

However, French economist Thomas Piketty would likely say the Budget finally acknowledges: that wealth inequality matters more than income inequality, and criticizes how housing has become the central engine of inherited advantage. He would probably support the direction strongly but regard it as too incremental.

The most distinctive ethical feature of the Budget is that it implicitly treats: housing access and intergenerational opportunity as a moral problem requiring state correction, rather than merely outcomes of market competition. That’s a substantial philosophical shift in Australian economic rhetoric, even if the policies themselves remain cautious.

Many and sadly a growing number of our youth are feeling spiritual exhaustion beneath modern systems and the emptiness of a purely economic life. Societies where workers enrich others while remaining insecure themselves will always face social discontent and unrest. As English poet Shelley said so long ago:

The seed ye sow, another reaps;
The wealth ye find, another keeps.

That could almost be read as a poetic critique of asset inflation economies where labour income falls behind property wealth like what we are witnessing happening in Australia.

Coming back to Aristotle he would emphasize that the purpose of politics is to create conditions that would allow the flourishing of virtues, friendship, participation in civic life and time for contemplation, and he would see the Budget as an instrument towards achieving those goals.

If an economic system leaves people anxious, isolated, cynical and unable to access affordable shelter, have families and take part in civic life, then even a society as wealthy as ours may be failing ethically. A society may materially prosper while denying its next generation becoming not just consumers or merely taxpayers but involved citizens.

That is why debates about: housing, debt, education, climate, and wages feel deeper than economics. Seamus Heaney wrote of moments when the longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up. We must continue to make sure that this can be achieved without disruption to our social fabric.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:

PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below

Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.

Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team