We need some creative thinking. There are some givens. One of these is that you need differential reward for skills and effort so that total wealth can be maximized. But in our system there are many inequities and inbalances, for example those who are skilled in moving a decimal point in the right direction at the right time are hailed as financial geniuses and given huge rewards. Those who are skilled in inserting a drip in the right place at the right time are valued, but only at a fraction of the reward. I think we have to live with this. Artifices to control our capitalistic system could well throw out the benefits: we could all be equal but all enjoying a smaller, though fairer, slice of a much reduced pie. What we need, I think, is an elevation of other motives to productivity and contribution. Why not publish in the newspapers each year a list of those who have paid the highest percentage contributions to income tax? Oh, how I wish there were some calculus of contributions to public good. Then teachers, nurses, garbage contractors, scientists, and good honest toilers might be recognised.

Are we ever going to be free of this cryptomarxist tosh about rich and poor? If Bill Gates decided to become a resident of Australia, the country would benefit enormously from all the taxes he would have to pay, but the gap between rich and poor would widen considerably. As some people will have nothing whatever you do, the only way to achieve equality would be for all of us to be destitute. Remember that envy is one of the most deadly of the deadly sins, and should be vigorously avoided.

I agree with those who say that a disparity in earnings is simply an indication of our capitalist system.

As someone posted: we are a predominantly middle-class society. I personally couldn't give a rats about the disparity between this majority and the minority of the obscenely wealthy.

Its the disparity between the obscenely poor and the middle class majority that I think we should be more concerned about. I use the word "obscenely" deliberately because its a pretty good description of the plight of a growing section of the population - who are not bludgers, druggies, immoral or no-hopers - who don't have enough to eat, who can't afford dental or medical care, who face homelessness every month and who are consistently disregarded in terms of our societal make up.

There have been articles posted in this forum bringing attention to this growing sector, but lulled by the assertion that unemployment figures are at an all-time low, the ever-increasing numbers of such people don't seem to impinge very much on the national consciousness.

Fdixit “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.”

Why?

What incentive does this give to those who freely choose to work longer hours in riskier pursuits, which generate the base incomes on which taxes are levied? What incentive to really “work” is there for the indolent, who I can only presume, would automatically receive the “minimum wage”?

The problem with things which “immediately come to mind” is they lack the benefit of considered analysis.

I saw a tv show recently where a 37 year old (looked 57) drug dependent hopeless soul was pleading with a magistrate regarding 30 odd counts of shoplifting, to be imprisoned so she could rehabilitate from her drug addicted “lifestyle”.
I guess, she would be among those who are in that lowest 20% and among those who the author would seek to share in some “egalitarian distribution of wealth”. Should she automatically receive the “minimum” wage?

How much more a “share” of the fruits of the Australian economy should I receive for not being a hopeless, uneducated, prostituting and shoplifting junkie?

The more government intercedes in the process of wealth generation, the more it reduces the discretionary incentive of those who create opportunities for the poorer and less enabled.

When government tries to “creatively” engineer wealth distribution through employment schemes and nationalised industry, a host of sheltered workshops, ultimately run for the benefit of militant unionists, mushroom up to suck the financing ability out of venture capital markets, becoming the host to parasitic and entrench restrictive work practices (UK Labour policy 1945-1979).

If “equitable wealth distribution “really generated such wonderous benefits as suggested by statements like

“Major economic inequalities impede the development of a contented society. 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.”

then, why does increasing taxation have a -.3187 correlation to “happiness” (nationmaster.com tax as % GDP versus national Life Satisfaction index)?

“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.

Yeah right Leigh!

Well, you and Col can opt for either a civil or very UN-civil society: what will it be?

Leigh

You haven't had a dangerous thought for decades. More important, you haven't had a thought for anyone in poverty or other disadvantage.

Wrap yourself up in your blanket of apathy and go back to the sleep of complacency.