"-- an end of government support for private schools".
Wow! did St. Vinnies really say that? where, when, and in what context. It is too mind boggling for me to accept that statement at face value.

Go ahead selectively choose statistics to ‘prove’ your point and raise the typical ‘watch out for the Marxists’ insult. We ordinary people know that income inequality is increasing.

We hear about the ludicrous incomes paid to CEO’s and we also understand that these payments do not even depend on performance as they have exit clauses in their contracts that provide them with a significant pay-out even if they fail miserably.

This is ‘evidence’ that ‘proves’ to us that something is wrong.

I wonder if Vinnies really do see the answer as more tax for the rich and more welfare for the poor, I don’t. I want to see more access to resources and real opportunities for meaningful work for the poor

As Peter points out, this is hardly the first time that Vinnies has put out rhetorically inflated drivel in the guise of social analysis. Its report ‘Two Australias – Addressing Inequality and Poverty’ released in 2001 was even worse than this one.

It is sad to see Vinnies well-deserved social capital being used as a platform for such an ideological spray.

I’m no fan of this government’s social policies, and believe that organisations like St Vincents have a vital role in calling attention to poverty and its causes. But it should do so from a position that is reasoned and credible. Contrast this report with the work of the Smith Family, for example, that not only do a good job in providing assistance to the needy but also sponsor credible and authoritative research on the dimensions, causes and consequences of poverty and disadvantage – often to the discomfort of the government.

By providing such and easy target for the government and CIS, this report is likely to do more harm than good to the cause its authors advocate.

At this point, I wish only to point out a contradiction in Saunders article, or rather, a lack of disclosure. Mr Saunders states " The original St Vincent de Paul was a French monk who devoted his life to caring for orphans, founding a hospice, giving work to the unemployed and establishing rural kitchens. Research by the organisation that bears his name today seems to find more inspiration in Karl Marx than in St Vincent." Mr Saunder apparently is one of the directors of a major lobby group The Centre for Independant Studies, funded by tax deductable donations. Part of this Centre's aims are " The CIS is actively engaged in support of a free enterprise economy and a free society under limited government where individuals can prosper and fully develop their talents". I think that, in their own way, the centre is just as biased as St Vinnies. The CIS board is full of CEO's and directors of major public companies, just as St Vinnies is full of Christians - each with their own bias. The difference is...I doubt that any person who volunteers or works for Vinnies will have their personal fortunes, such as they are, increase as a result of any changes that they advocate. Any CEO of CIS may very well find their fortunes increase as a result of changes they advocate. I suggest follow the benefits to check the veracity or motives (however buried or implied) of anyone who advocates changes

What the SVDP report gets wrong and Saunders get right is that socialism is not the only logical anwser to poverty. There is a world of difference between welfare as a safety net for those who absolutely need it and redistributing income so that "inequality" is reduced.

The best way to perpetuate poverty is to hook the masses on passive welfare handouts, make them dependent on the state, and centralise all economic and social power. But there's another word for that - slavery. The best way to promote wealth for all is to support the concept of property rights for citizens and encourage free and fair trade. There's another word for that - western democracy.

If there is one thing that is absolutely certain about low incomes, that is the amount people do receive from Centrelink payments. To suggest that measurement of such incomes is unreliable is a nonsense. The numbers of Centrelink pension recipients are approximately a quarter of all Australians. It is clear that such incomes are entirely inadequate in the first place, and have maintained a declining value over the last 10 or more years in relation to growth of Cost of Living. Unreliability of measurement occurs when people start working, and are taxed at th highest rates of any other Australian citizen, especially if they have the privilege of working in the lowest paid jobs. I understand this practice to be fully endorsed by the said writer !