The Australian Public Service (APS) is tasked with solving complicated policy issues. The complexity of the problems is such that they are called “wicked” problems because of their resistance to resolution. Some of the major “wicked” problems include obesity, social inequality, land degradation, climate change and indigenous advantage. “Wicked” problems are described using common characteristics such as the lack of a clear definition because their nature and scope depends on who is asked, the presence of multiple interdependencies and causalities, efforts to address them often result in unforeseen consequences, the lack of defined solutions, they are unstable, involve behavioral changes and are mostly the result of chronic political failure. This article focuses on inequality as a “bad” problem, the attempts that have been made to solve the problem, and an idea to help address the problem (Western, 1983, 45). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Income inequality and wealth inequality are the two key measures of inequality in nations (Australian Council of Social Service, 2015, 11). In Australia, both incomes are highly undistributed, with a person in the top 20% earning around five times as much and having around 70% more wealth than someone in the bottom 20% (Habibis & Walter, 2009, 78). Inequality is harmful in every society because it limits people's ability to participate in economic activities and hinders 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 as 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 harder to tame. The level of income inequality in Australia is higher than the OECD average, although it is lower for other countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States (Habibis & Walter, 2009, 78). Critical analysis of attempts to address the problem The Australian Government has made various attempts to address inequalities through various means, such as progressive taxes, universal access to education, a system of wage regulation, full employment policies and the creation of networks of social security (Australian Public Service Commission, 2007, 9). However, most of these methods have not fully addressed disparities and inequalities. The efforts, however, have made a big step forward in addressing the wicked problem. For example, progressive taxes are used to redistribute income so that those with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of tax than those with lower incomes (Australian Council of Social Service, 2015, 28). However, this approach is not sufficient to address inequality because the nature of the problem is complex and has multiple causes. Furthermore, there are negative consequences of high progressive taxation. When working for an extra dollar gives no incentive, people prefer not to work as hard, so they prefer to spend more time on rest and vacations, leading to a slowdown in economic growth. Furthermore, the use of progressive taxes poses a moral hazard to some individualsthey may not work to improve their well-being because the government offers insurance against poverty, disability, and unemployment. Therefore, they remain dependent on the government for support, causing them to spend even more of the revenue that would be used to implement other development projects. Therefore, governments' attempt to use progressive taxes to manage social inequality remains unsuccessful (Fagan & Bryan, 1991, 29-30). Furthermore, social safety nets such as cash benefits have been used to narrow the gap between rich and poor with limited 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 allocated to low-income families represents one-tenth of 1% of the national economic output (Dorling & Dorling, 2015, 24). Even after including direct public services and tax breaks, the share of economic output devoted to family care remains small compared to the amount needed to make notable changes in inequality. Another reason for the failure of social safety nets is the existence of a “ladder of opportunity” among high-income families. As much as the government tries to improve the position of the poor, their children have limited opportunities compared to their peers from wealthy families. The differences do not arise from lack of basic education or lack of talent, but the child from a more economically stable family is likely to receive assistance and support from parents through university, first car, internship and work connections, having therefore a better economic situation. result compared to that of a low-income family. Therefore, the adequacy of safety nets depends only on the provision of basic needs, which leaves a large gap for beneficiaries to fill to compete with others. Furthermore, the approach based on the use of universal education has not borne fruit in curbing the problem of social inequality. Instead, inequality has taken center stage in the education sector, thus increasing the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. A report by the Public Education Foundation revealed that students in disadvantaged schools fall behind their peers in “affluent” schools or in other nations (Wilkins, 2015, 94). In particular, children whose parents achieved poorly or left school early lagged behind their peers from the moment they entered school and mostly came from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Therefore, the education system is not effective in managing inequality but rather in propagating it because it uses general approaches instead of applying targeted teaching strategies. A new idea to address the problem Successfully managing a problem as serious as social inequality requires a reevaluation of the conventional ways used to solve problems. Without placing all the blame on politicians and economists, we must first recognize that inequality will lead to significant structural changes in both economic and political systems. The changes are also expected to be costly because they will go against politicians who are the biggest beneficiaries of existing paradigms. It may be time to consider how we see our world before finding the ultimate solution to the problem to form a common baseline. Understanding our different worldviews will improve the formulation of policies that benefit the majority of people and therefore their actual success. Here.