Australia’s obscene concentration of wealth

The obscene concentration of wealth in Australia is no coincidence. This is a policy choice. And we pay the price for it with our democracy, he writes Dr James Schuurmans-Stekhoven.

LET’S BE BAD, top 10% Australian households control 44% of all our wealth – the richest 200 Australians now control $667 billion – more than 36% of Australia’s annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Including 3.7 million people 757,000 childrenlive below poverty line.

This belies the neoliberal myths of “level playing field”, “trickle-down” and meritocracy that have been marketed to us.

Actually, this is a rigged game.

Philosopher Ingrid Robeyns he calls thisrestrictiveness” — the principle that at a certain point wealth is no longer a personal achievement but a systemic risk. Arguments for setting an upper limit on extreme wealth are devastating.

First, extreme wealth is directly linked to poverty. Research It shows that the lion’s share of economic gains goes to the rich, while only a tiny fraction reaches those who have the least – upwards rather than downwards. Tax cuts disproportionately benefit the richtax contributions could support the poor.

Second, excessive wealth undermines democracy.

The ultra-rich fund political parties, buy media outlets and hire lobbyists to write the rules in their favor. They don’t just follow the rules, they write them.

just look To go forward. defined as “A stratospheric elite of rich, bored men looking for a hobby”This digital campaign organization deposited into bank account Successful “No” campaign against Indigenous Voice was introduced to Parliament and spent $15 million to defeat it. His donors include a pension fund manager Simon Fenwick ($750,000), Perth car dealer Brian Hadley Anderson ($1,025 million) and the Liberal Party’s own Cormack Foundation ($500,000). Clive Palmer It spent $1.93 million on advertising against Voice.

This is not the base. This is how oligarchy works.

Third, the super rich disproportionately responsible For climate change. Lifestyles and investments much higher emissions. One ecologically just worldThey could never be this rich.

Fourth, no one truly “earns” his fortune on merit. The late Nobel laureate Herbert Simon It is estimated that 90% of economic prosperity comes from what previous generations left us. Wealth is largely “natural lottery” innate and inherited advantage.

So what is the solution?

Dutch-Belgian philosopher Ingrid Robeyns offers two border: one ethical boundary – the amount needed for a fully flourishing life, around 1 million euros – and a democratically decided political limit, perhaps 10 million euros per person. Beyond that, it’s almost total taxation. And inheritance ceilings to break dynastic privilege transfer. Meritocracy means nothing if someone’s grandparents can buy them a seat at the table.

Critics bemoan “incentives.” Standard defense: “If you tax the rich, they stop creating wealth.”. This is a tired old lie.

People create and contribute to nonprofit causes. And it ignores the environmental, democratic and social cohesion benefits that will arise from this.

Robeyns notes that even if a restrictive economy did disincentivize workers, this would weaken the fiscal case but would not affect the ethical case for limiting excessive wealth.

legal scholar Tammy Harel Ben Shahar proposed an alternative relative threshold (limiting wealth based on the gap between rich and poor) that better addresses the political inequality justification of limitationism.

Budget takes a step in the right direction

2026–27 Federal Budget dealt one of the harshest blows to high net worth wealth decades. 50 percent capital gains tax reduction applies scrappedIt was replaced by a model indexed to inflation. Minimum 30% tax base. Negative gear is now limited to: new buildings.

The changes are being framed as a turning point towards intergenerational equity and housing affordability. The innovation sector’s response has been swift – founders have warned that talent will move abroad – but these are ordinary cries from an over-privileged class finally being asked to pay its own debt. to share.

We can’t rely on trickle-down morality to fix a structural failure

John Maynard Keynes I dreamed that we would grow ‘money motive’ – instead neo-liberalism institutionalized it. Taming capitalism, preserving democracy, and meeting urgent unmet needs requires rethinking how much we will increase inequality. to tolerate.

Oxfam Australia he called it for what it was: unjust, unsustainable, and immoral. Their great desire? A 5% wealth tax on billionaires alone would have raised $17.4 billion last year; This was enough to fund universal cheap child care, extend the energy bill rebate for years, and ease the housing and child care shortages that are crushing everyone else.

It is time for Australians to reassert that the democratic state and the laws that bind it are superior to the chances of any individual.

No bank account should be large enough to buy a seat above the law. No donation should be so large that it silences the voice of the people. And no inheritance should be so great as to create a hereditary aristocracy in a country that believes in fair dealing.

The price of exceptionalism is clearly very high. Is it time to cover the rot?

Dr James Schuurmans-Stekhoven has had a career defined by a high level of academic rigor, a polymatic research approach and a commitment to strategic optimization across many disciplines.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.