Old Marxists never die. They write opinion articles for The Australian Financial Review

Another RSPT is buried in the Henry report, the Rich Supermodels Profit Tax.

Here's trouble. John Passant's blog, En Passant -- Revolutionary reflections on this world of ours, Tuesday:

THE editor has told me that I will have an article on economic rent and taxation published in The Australian Financial Review tomorrow [ January 12].

Vogue magazine, July 16, 2007:

IN 1990, supermodel Linda Evangelista uttered what has become the most famous quote in modelling history: "We don't wake up for less than $10,000 a day."

Passant in the AFR yesterday:

ANYTHING more than that [$10,000] is economic rent. A government could tax almost all that excess without affecting a supermodel's work decisions. They would still go to work even if the rent tax reduced the return to "just" $10,000 a day. The beauty of the Henry review is that it has planted the seeds for the future of tax reform in Australia. With systemic changes in Australian capitalism, future governments will be forced to revisit rent taxes. Taxing economic rent offers a seemingly magic pudding of tax. The taxation of economic rent becomes a tool in addressing the tendency to monopoly and at the same time raises revenues appropriated by monopolists from other parts of society. I have seen the future. It is the taxation of economic rent.

You do the maths. Forbes.com, July 16, 2007:

GISELE Bundchen tops Forbes.com's 2007 list of the top earning models in the world, raking in $US33million, more than triple the $US9m banked by Kate Moss, who came in second. The 15 models on our list were ranked primarily according to estimated earnings over the past 12 months. Where necessary, the "relevancy" of the model -- determined by recent campaigns, editorials, fashion magazine covers and the opinion of those in the industry -- were taken into account. Household names Heidi Klum ($US8m), Adriana Lima ($US6m) and Alessandra Ambrosio ($US6m) round out the top five slots.

Robyn Williams on ABC Online's The Drum, January 7:

HOW delightful it is, as ABC listeners turn from the wireless during these hedonistic days of summer (if you're not awash in Queensland), to know that the stalwarts at News Limited are still tuning in. Our program on January 1 was an interview with Dr Tim Flannery based on his new book, Here on Earth. But, it seems, some papers don't approve of the genial, soft-spoken Timothy. "Religious fundamentalist," harrumphed Tim Blair in The Daily Telegraph, referring to Flannery's enthusiasm for Gaia, which Blair eruditely dismisses as "rubbish".The following day The Australian reproduced no fewer than four short columns from The Science Show script together with an editorial snorting that the Gaia hypothesis is little more than quasi-spiritual tosh.

I am divine, but not in an elitist way. Derek Sapphire on his blog Sapphirical Reflections, January 5:

ONE thing I always find particularly annoying about right-wingers and conservatives is how oblivious they are to the presence of Gaia. Take this vicious diatribe from the always offensive Tim Blair. In it, he mocks our beloved fellow traveller Tim Flannery for saying: "I think that within this century the concept of the strong Gaia will actually become physically manifest." Well, actually Gaia is already manifest -- or should I say womanifest -- to many of us already. Take the recent unexplained deaths of thousands of fish and birds, for example. Gaia is just working through some issues now. And it's really sad that the recent casualties of this process happen to be non-human people (animals) who've committed no wrong. But just wait until She's ready to deal with who's really to blame. That's why I suggest that anyone who doesn't already worship the Earth Goddess should start doing so with gusto pretty soon. Because eventually it's going to get down to a pretty simple choice: you are either for Gaia, or against Her. And frankly, I wouldn't recommend being in that latter category. No, I wouldn't recommend it at all.

[e-mail]