It takes courage to write as you have in our capitalist society.Bravo.
The solution that immediately comes to mind is to have relativity of wages where the maximum wage is limited to 20 times the minimum wage.
The long term solution is to mandate that wealth and tax records be in the public domain.
The consequences would be awesome.

The widening disconnection between parliamentary democracy and economic democracy is articulated very clearly in this excellent article.

Perhaps we will continue with this blatant hypocrisy of Australian eqalitarianism until we introduce a 'reform' whereby those who are poor get multiple votes and those who are rich are pegged at a single vote. I can see it now: ten votes for the homeless and isolated communities; seven votes for pensioners; five votes for the unemployed; three votes for low-income renters; and so on. Maybe then politicians would have incentives to examine economic interests in harmony with political interests.

Dream on Frank!

For heaven’s sake, get over the ‘wealthiest 200 Australians’. They are nothing.

The difference in incomes in Australia is part of the free-enterprise system. I have always been on the lower end of the scale, but I say good luck to the wealthy who, generally, have a lot more pressure and worry than I have.

All this harping on ‘distribution of wealth’ is pure Communist claptrap; and we know what life under that failed system is like.

“Should this gulf between rich and poor be a matter of public concern?” asks the author.

Definitely not! Major economic inequalities may very well “impede the development of a contented society”, as this undoubtedly well-paid academic claims; but only because of envy and the belief held by our ‘poorer’ citizens that wealth is achieved by luck, not hard work –and that those inheriting wealth have no right do so.

“If people’s perception of their happiness is judged according to what they have relative to others, then economic inequality is a recipe for widespread and permanent social discontent”, is another example of sheer pottiness from the author.

If people judge their happiness by how much money they have in relation to how much others have, there is absolutely no hope at all for them. Stilwell then, more or less, concedes this, but still insists that these losers rate more “societal attention”!

This article could be considered absolute rubbish, apart from the content of the past paragraph, which clearly shows that Stilwell’s “different vision” for Australian society makes him a person to be treated with suspicion and disdain. His vision is more appropriate to the old Soviet Union

Those who think that it's perfectly okay in our free enterprise system that the head of Macquarie Bank should earn many times more than a paramedic should have the banker try to resucitate them in an emergency.

Seriously, it is a scandal that ambos, nurses and doctors (ie: those who save lives) are paid way less than, say, the heads of mining corporations. And in case you haven't noticed, it's the miners that generate the wealth. You know, the people who actually dig the stuff of the ground (or blow it out of the ground these days).

In America there is a more serious situation where around 30 percent of the workforce are on the minimum wage. They work hard in places like retail stores, aged care facilities and cleaning. But their wages and hours trap them in poverty. Many are actually homeless and still hold down full-time jobs (Barbara Ehrenreich's excellent work Nickel and Dimed is good reading on this - see www.barbaraehrenreich.com).

Corporate America is effectively bludging off these underpaid but essential workers. And with "WorkChoices" (which nobody voted for) it may be a case that what Ehrenreich found is our future.

Btw, drug dealing is in the spirit of free enterprise but strangely Little Johnnie turns all communist when it comes to that.

The poorest in this country are among the wealthiest in the world. Naked you come into the world and naked you go out, blessed be the name of the LORD. Why waste our time on this useless analaysis. Let Christ change your heart and be generous to the poor. Why play the politics of envy? Most lotto winners lose their fortune because they have not the maturity to handle money. Poverty in this country is more a spiritual condition than a physical one. No one is rich once they die unless of course they are in Christ.

fdixit:

Your "solution" is a guarantee of mediocrity. While income isn't the only reason why you live in a country, your "solution" would drive the most capable away. Why would someone who could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in places like continental europe, asia or other parts of the world stay here if their income is limited as you suggest? The result of this would be an even bigger brian drain and a considerable dumbing down of the country, not to mention the loss of management and other skills. Is that what you want?

As a concept, egalitarianism is a nice idea, however it will never really exist. As long as the concept of wealth exists (both in monetary terms and asset terms), then there will be people who have different capacities. Note that this is different to "one person, one vote".

So how do you manage the disparity? In reality, I don't think you can. While people choose to work harder, more than 1 job, be willing to accept more dangerous, more stressful jobs or jobs which have a greater intellectual or physical requirements (or both), then people will be paid more and so the disparity will exist. Conversely, those who choose not to do these jobs will be paid less. The socialist ideal where this doesn't occur won't happen in Australia any time soon, thank god.