It is quite possible that income inequality as measured in Australia could be less over the time studied but WEALTH inequality increase. Many business people who are well off may wish to have relatively low taxable income but receive benefits in other ways, through various company rather than individual expenditures, etc. If you used net income as a measure of wealth, many farmers who may actually be quite well off would appear to be almost at the poverty level. Low net income is quite consistent with having assets in land and farm machinery worth millions. Perhaps the rich in Australia have been increasing wealth while decreasing income (relatively). I see another problem with the analysis. If social transfers to the less well off are to be counted in income, shouldn't transfers to companies such as tax breaks, grants, etc. be figured into the incomes of those who earn income from shareholding? There are surely umpteen examples of this type of transfer to the relatively well off. Were these counted in the study or only transfers for the poor and working classes? Cheers, Ken Hanly
