Means testing welfare for the wealthy and the taxpayer's burden:

There is an important distinction in this debate that Leyonhjelm raises but doesn't pursue far enough: welfare designed to protect the vulnerable is fundamentally different from government assistance distributed to people who are financially capable of supporting themselves.
An observation about welfare for the wealthy introduces an equally important question: when governments distribute public money to people who don't need it, are they providing social protection, or buying political approval with taxpayers' money?
These are issues of fairness, fiscal responsibility and political accountability.

1. The central argument
There is a strong case for means testing when public debt is high and governments are asking ordinary Australians to accept austerity.
Consider the contradiction:
Governments tell taxpayers that spending must be restrained.
They impose higher taxes, reduce services or defer infrastructure.
Yet they continue providing subsidies and concessions to households with substantial incomes and assets.

Meanwhile, people genuinely struggling with housing, living costs and inadequate retirement savings compete for limited public resources.
That raises a legitimate question: why should taxpayers collectively subsidise the lifestyles of people who can comfortably afford to pay their own way?

However, there is another dimension. Wealthy recipients aren't necessarily the only beneficiaries of politically motivated spending. Governments can also protect popular entitlements across broad sections of the electorate because withdrawing them carries an electoral cost.

This is where the distinction between good social policy and political vote buying becomes important.

2.

2. The hidden welfare system: tax concessions for the wealthy
Perhaps the most significant omission in the article is that it concentrates on conventional welfare payments while giving insufficient attention to government assistance delivered through the tax system.

This is where the argument about welfare for the wealthy becomes particularly relevant.

Consider:

Superannuation concessions: Tax advantages disproportionately benefit higher-income earners with larger balances.
Capital gains tax discounts: Treasury figures examined by a parliamentary inquiry show that approximately 83% of the individual and trust capital gains discount benefit went to the top 10% of income earners in 2022–23.
Negative gearing: Tax deductions can reduce the taxable income of property investors, including those with substantial incomes.
Family home exemption: The family home is excluded from the Age Pension assets test, potentially allowing some asset-rich retirees to qualify for public assistance.
These are not necessarily conventional welfare payments, but they represent government-supported financial advantages and revenue forgone. 
The important point is that governments should scrutinise these concessions with the same determination they apply to ordinary welfare expenditure.

There is an uncomfortable political question here: why is it comparatively easy to scrutinise the entitlements of someone receiving JobSeeker, while substantial tax concessions enjoyed by wealthier Australians can escape equivalent public scrutiny?

3. Where Leyonhjelm's argument needs qualification
I agree with the principle of directing assistance according to need, but there are some important distinctions.

The Age Pension is already means tested. The issue is whether its existing thresholds and exemptions remain appropriate.

The NDIS is not means tested, but eligibility is restricted by age, residency and disability requirements. Financial means and disability are different considerations.
Universal Medicare and pharmaceutical assistance can be justified as social insurance rather than individual charity. A wealthy person becoming ill does not necessarily mean public healthcare should be denied.

Equally, means testing must not become an excuse for punishing people who have worked hard, saved responsibly and accumulated modest assets for retirement.
The objective should be fairness, not simply cutting expenditure.

3.

4. Here is what governments should do!

Apply consistent means testing: Review income, assets and eligibility across government assistance programs.

Scrutinise wealthy beneficiaries: Examine superannuation concessions, capital gains discounts and property tax arrangements alongside conventional welfare.

Protect genuine need: Disability, poverty, unemployment and genuine hardship must not become casualties of budget repair.

Remove political exemptions: No group should retain favourable treatment simply because it represents an influential voting constituency.

Publish the real cost: Make government assistance and revenue forgone transparent so taxpayers can see who benefits and who pays.

There is considerable merit in the Parliamentary Budget Office's distinction between direct expenditure and tax expenditures. Tax concessions can be government spending in economic effect, even though the money never appears as a welfare cheque.

5. The broader political issue
The strongest criticism of the article is that it treats welfare primarily as a financial problem when it is also a political problem.

Governments have an incentive to distribute benefits to electorally important groups while spreading the cost across the entire taxpayer population. The beneficiaries can see what they receive; the individual taxpayer sees only a fraction of the overall cost.
This creates an environment in which political popularity can take precedence over economic responsibility.

However, we should distinguish politically motivated spending from legitimate universal entitlements. The existence of a benefit for a wealthy person does not, by itself, establish vote buying. The test should be whether the benefit has a defensible public purpose and whether its distribution is fair.

Concluding observation:
A government cannot credibly lecture ordinary Australians about austerity while protecting politically convenient privileges for the wealthy.
Nor should a person's financial circumstances determine whether they receive essential assistance when they are genuinely disabled or vulnerable.

The fundamental principle should be simple:
A fair welfare system should protect those who need help, encourage personal responsibility among those who can provide for themselves, and demand accountability from those who distribute the money.

That is as much a question of political integrity as it is of economics.

Reducing Public Service wastage would more than likely help also ! Another sure method would be to close Tax loopholes !
PM doesn't really need 49 advisors either !

Before rich people and politicians start attacking the less fortunate, they should be required, by Australian voters, to stop flinging money at things not relevant to Australia - Ukraine, PNG rugby teams, seats at the UN, some of the Prime Ministerial and other Minister's overseas jaunts, all foreign aid, Net Zero, climate talkfests, subsidies to foreign rewnable rip-off merchants, golf clubs and cultural/religious organisations - just to name a few.