the article talks a lot about perceptions of growing inequality, but not much about the data.

As I understand it, the data are quite mixed. There has been growth in asset inequality over the last decade or so, but the case of income inequality is a lot less clear, with ABS data suggesting it's fairly stable or even declining slightly:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6523.02003-04?OpenDocument

The authors suggest that "neoliberal think tanks have relentlessly disseminated propaganda that is conducive to inequality and hostile to welfare" Maybe so, but leftist think tanks have relentlessly disseminated propaganda suggesting that income inequality has widened dramatically and rapidly thanks to neoliberal policies, whereas the truth may be more complex and nuanced.

Politics are important, but the starting point of good policy on income inequality must include looking at what the actual data say and having a firm handle on the causes of inequality. I don't see much of either in this article.

The article by Sally Babbington, Sue King and Christine Ratnasingham seems much better focussed on describing the reality of poverty then finding means to address it

Crisis, what crisis ?

Lowest unemployment rate in a generation, high and growing wages , highest percentage of University graduates ever, strong economic growth. The neoliberal tweaking of the past 20 years has been such a tragedy for all of us.

Why should we pay more taxes ? Why is a government smarter at spending money than the $14 an hour cleaner who earned it ? Why should we spend more on welfare when we could spend it on getting them off welfare ?

Old Left spend spend spend solutions belong in a world which does not exist anymore, the 1970s brand of Keynesian economics won't work in a deregulated economy with a floating currency.

I would also have to question the need ? Just because top executives are earning more does not mean everyone else is poorer.

My apologies but I am feeling very right wing after the ALP conference.

In your zeal to tax the hide off everyone making more than some hypothetical maximum amount remember that those making the very high salarys are frequently the ones bringing employment to our fair shores.

In fact an argument could be made to significantly reduce the maximum tax rates to further increase employment in Aus. As an example why do you think PBL (the Packer dynasty) was recently aggressively bidding to set up a casino in Macau. I would assume that it wasn't because he had a particular fondness for the Chinese but rather for their 15% tax levy.

How many more jobs and career advancement opportunities could we have in Aus if this casino (or any other major revenue generating enterprise) was set up within our shores.

Or have I missed the point entirely - maybe from the perspective of envy politics it is better to tax the bejesus out of our successful entrepreneurs so that we can then slow the economy back down to pre '96 levels and all major investments (and high paying jobs) can then go offshore.

Bruce, to be fair those that live below our set poverty line (I heard it suggested on the news this morning that it is the equivalent to $650/week take-home, or $42,000 gross per year per family), should not pay any tax. Particularly those in receipt of welfare - its beyond idiotic that we pay welfare, then tax it, pay administration costs, then pay it out to someone else. Dumb dumb dumb! This means of course that those on higher income have to pay a bit more tax to compensate. Yes, I get your arguments about global businesses etc (I am after all, normally right-wing), but we need to find a balance between attracting business and jobs, and building a fair society. I champion the cutting of taxes for those that earn less than say $35,000, even though it will do me out of a job myself (a tax accountant).

As to your argument about PBL's casino, might I kindly suggest that while tax rates play a role in business planning, the income-generating capacity of the project is far more important. Any accountant that advises their clients purely on the tax consequences are opening themselves to one hell of a law suit.

Country Gail,

The people who are really hit hard with taxes are the Middle Folks, $80K-$200K pa. Above those amounts, you have the ability to tax dodge and form trusts excetera. Primary producers and small businesses, receive subsidies and have disguised income. Cost of living is another factor. Someone living in Amidale does have to pay for a weekly train ticket from Glenn Brook to Town Hall, Sydney: If fair slice of a youn person's pay. Also, inheriting a $300,000 farm or a cake shop, means one can start-off, where others finish.

Bruce,

If memory services the Packers don't pay any tax, yet complain about inadequate infrastructure. Wasn't it Kerry who said words to the effect that only fools don't minimise tax. The rub is, not everyone has the capacity to so. It is caste system.

If one wants to be productive consider the Rural sector consuming only 5% of GDP and producing of 5% of the same. We can't keep supporting the Farmers for ever. They need to be retrained not proped-up indefinitely. Luxury and death taxes above $5 million, is a consideration, only the avoiders will move their money offshore.

No more Family Trusts? The politicians have these themselves. So, these Trusts will stay.

There are too tiers to the tax system too.

Middle managers, senior technicians and researchers, produce wealth. The Packers just hire them.

Frank S.,

Please note, above request/comment on Oz Gini Co-efficient. What would you aim for?