The Australian Public Service (APS) is responsible for solving complex policy problems. The complexity of the problems is such that they are called “wicked” because of their resistance to resolution. Some of the key “wicked” issues include obesity, social inequality, land degradation, climate change and indigenous advantage. “Wicked” problems are described using common characteristics such as their lack of clear definition because their nature and extent depends on who is asked, the presence of multiple interdependencies and causalities, Efforts to resolve them often result in unintended consequences, lack of definitive solutions, are unstable, involve behavioral change, and are mostly the result of chronic policy failure. This article focuses on inequality as a "wicked" problem, attempts that have been made to solve the problem, and an idea to help solve the problem (Western, 1983, 45). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayIncome inequality and wealth inequality are the two key measures of inequality in nations (Australian Council of Social Service, 2015, 11). In Australia, both are largely undistributed, with someone in the richest 20 percent earning about five times and having about 70 percent more wealth than someone in the poorest 20 percent (Habibis and Walter, 2009, 78). Inequalities are harmful in any society because they limit the ability of individuals to participate in economic activities and hinder social cohesion. When fewer people own resources, economic activity is reduced as minorities start businesses, build homes, acquire land, and purchase goods and services. Furthermore, inequality undermines democracy since money and power determine whose interests are prioritized and who participates in various events. Australia lacks legal protection for basic human rights, making the problem of social inequality even more amplified and more difficult to control. The level of income inequality in Australia is higher than the OECD average, although it is lower in other countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States (Habibis & Walter, 2009, 78) .Critical analysis of attempts to resolve the problem The Australian government has made various attempts to reduce disparities through various means such as progressive taxes, universal access to education, wage regulation system, full employment policies and the creation of social safety nets (Australian Public Service Commission, 2007, 9). However, most of these methods have not completely resolved disparities and inequalities. Efforts have, however, taken a big step forward in resolving this vexing problem. For example, progressive taxes are used to redistribute income so that those with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of taxes than those with lower incomes (Australian Council of Social Service, 2015, 28). However, this approach is not sufficient to combat inequality because the nature of the problem is complex and has multiple causes. Furthermore, highly progressive taxation has negative consequences. When working for a dollar more is not an incentive, one would prefer not to work as hard and would therefore prefer to spend more time on rest and vacations, which would slow economic growth. Furthermore,the use of progressive taxes results in a moral hazard in which some individuals may not work to improve their well-being because the government provides them with insurance against poverty, disability, and unemployment. Thus, they remain dependent on government support, leading to even greater expenditure of revenue that would be used to implement other development projects. Therefore, the attempt of governments to use progressive taxes to manage social inequalities remains unsuccessful (Fagan and Bryan, 1991, 29-30). Furthermore, social safety nets like cash benefits have been used to reduce social inequality, bridging the gap between the rich and the poor without any success (Dorling & Dorling, 2015, 24). One reason for their failure is that they are too thin to create a significant difference between the two extreme wealth groups. For example, in the United States, the entire budget reserved for low-income households represents one-tenth of 1% of the country's economic output (Dorling & Dorling, 2015, 24). Even including direct government services and tax breaks, the share of economic output devoted to helping families remains small compared to the amount needed to make notable changes in inequality. Another reason for the lack of success of social safety nets is the existence of an “opportunity ladder” among high-income households. Although the government strives to improve the situation of the poor, their children have limited opportunities compared to their age peers from wealthy families. The differences do not arise from a lack of basic education or a lack of talent, but the child from a more economically stable household is likely to benefit from parental help and support through university, their first car, an internship and professional connections, thus benefiting from a better economic situation. result compared to that of a low-income family. Therefore, the sufficiency of safety nets depends only on the satisfaction of basic needs, leaving a large gap that beneficiaries must fill to compete with others. Furthermore, the approach of resorting to universal education has not borne fruit in curbing the problem of social inequalities. Instead, inequality has taken center stage in the education sector, widening the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. A report by the Public Education Foundation found that students in disadvantaged schools lag behind their counterparts in “rich” schools or those in other countries (Wilkins, 2015, 94). Notably, children whose parents performed poorly or left school early lagged behind their peers upon entering school, and they were mostly from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Therefore, the education system is not effective in managing inequalities, but rather in propagating them due to the use of general approaches instead of applying targeted teaching strategies. A new idea to solve the problem. Successfully managing a problem as serious as social inequality requires a reevaluation of the conventional methods used to solve the problem. solve problems. Without placing all the blame on politicians and economists, we must first recognize that inequality will lead to important structural changes in economic and political systems. The changes are also expected to be costly because they will work against politicians who are the main beneficiaries of existing paradigms. He is.