CEOs at some of Australia's biggest companies are earning 55 times more than the average worker.
While that's a slight dip from post-COVID CEO wages, it's a clear indication that the wealth gap continues to widen as the cost-of-living crisis worsens.
So is it finally time to address wealth inequality in Australia and throughout the world?
Many think it is — and those leading the calls for change might surprise you.
"Gross inequality is not good for anybody, including the rich people, and it's unsustainable," says Morris Pearl, former managing director of Black Rock, one of the world's largest investment firms, and now chair of Patriotic Millionaires.
Patriotic Millionaires is a group of several hundred, mainly US-based, high-net worth individuals, with annual incomes over $US1 million ($1.5 million) and/or assets worth more than $US5 million, who are concerned about wealth inequality.
The group first came together in 2010, demanding an end to the Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires in the US.
But since then the problem has progressively worsened and currently 67 per cent of total wealth in the US is held by the top 10 per cent of earners.
"We're very concerned that inequality is getting worse and it is making our whole society unstable, and we're trying to change policies in our country to do something about that and to stop it before, frankly, everyone gives up on liberal democracy," Mr Pearl tells ABC RN's Future Tense.
Money begets power begets attention
Mr Pearl says Patriotic Millionaires' main focus is changing the tax system, "so that rich people pay at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as people that work for a living".
Members of the group also recognise that money begets power, and power begets attention.
"It turns out that rich people have vastly more … access to our political leaders than do most people," Mr Pearl says.
"I'm not really any smarter than the next guy but, somehow, people listened to me more, because I'm in the top 100 or 200 on the list of political donors and that's a sad reality."
He says the group is using its influence to push for change.
"We've been trying to organise rich people, so that we can go into politicians offices and tell them, 'Look, we're actual business people, actual investors, actual political donors' … and they listen to us," he says.
Additionally the group meets annually to run strategy sessions with academics, activists and lawmakers to discuss how to push for a fairer economy.
Mr Pearl believes "people are going to give up on the system" as wealth inequality becomes more pronounced.
"Basically, our society is being divided into pieces of rich people who will always be rich and people who work for a living, whose children and grandchildren will also have to work for a living," he says.
Reining in the rich
Given the interconnected global nature of business, is reining in the rich a realistic goal?
Mr Pearl explains that's why Patriotic Millionaires members are lobbying for a common international taxation system.
For example, in the lead up to this year's Rio de Janeiro G20 meeting in November, Mr Pearl says a number of countries have signalled their interest in a minimum tax on very wealthy people as proposed by French economist Gabriel Zucman.
While Mr Pearl is skeptical that that motion will be successful, he believes that it's important to have global cooperation on the issue.
He explains that the other problem is the "narrow definition of income".
"For instance, Elon Musk is one of the wealthiest people in the world, but he doesn't pay much income tax and the reason is he doesn't have any income … he doesn't get a pay cheque, so what we need to do is define income more inclusively," he says.
Mr Pearl puts it simply: "If people are making money — and we define making money liberally as people are becoming more rich than they were before — they should pay some amount of tax on that increase in their riches."
What is limitarianism?
The idea of clarifying and redefining what is meant by income and overhauling the taxation system is not unique to Patriotic Millionaires.
Ingrid Robeyns, a professor of philosophy and economics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, has spent the past decade working on an approach to wealth which she calls limitarianism.
"The limitarian idea involves saying to all members of society that while you can aspire to gain wealth, there should be a limit, a limit determined by society, and … that excess wealth should then be forfeited to the state to fund society's overall needs," Professor Robeyns explains.
She is specific about how much is too much wealth.
For example, she believes that in a country like the Netherlands, no one individual should have more than 10 million euros.
But she's quick to point out that that's an estimate, which could vary depending on each country's unique economic circumstances.
Professor Robeyns also believes there are ethical questions that individuals should be asking themselves about their wealth.
"'When is it enough for me? How much do I need? And what can I do in terms of alleviating the suffering of others or contributing to collective action problems, such as climate change, or strengthening democracy given that I have much more than I need?'," she says.
Mr Pearl says he's been supportive of taxation levels as high as 90 per cent but doesn't agree with a 100 per cent tax.
"People can become more wealthy and I think they should pay a high percentage of their income as taxes and a higher percentage as they become more and more wealthy," he says.
ANU tax expert Cagri Kumru isn't in favour of a 100 per cent tax on the wealthy either.
However, he does believe the rich should be paying more tax before middle or lower classes, largely because these changes would be less disruptive to the economy.
"Middle-income individuals are sensitive to any taxation changes, so if you tax them too much they will change their spending behaviour," Dr Kumru explains.
Whereas those on top incomes are "very insensitive to change".
But Dr Kumru stipulates that before initiating a blanket tax hike on the rich we need to distinguish between "productive and unproductive members of the top 1 per cent".
The productive members of that small group are usually entrepreneurs, who Dr Kumru says generate high income, but they also create jobs and opportunities.
He warns these individuals are sensitive to taxation changes.
Instead, he suggests unproductive wealthy individuals should be taxed highly.
These people may have received a large inheritance, own multiple properties or are on a very high income.
"It is better to tax this unproductive group heavily … they are very insensitive because their income does not depend on their behaviour," Dr Kumru explains.
Professor Robeyns argues that all members of society — productive or unproductive — should be rewarded for their work but there needs to be limits.
"Of course, we want positive incentives but there's no reason … why this reward should be endless."
Get more stories that go beyond the news cycle with our weekly newsletter.