Sometimes the simplest solutions are the most obvious, but also the most uncomfortable—especially if you're in Parliament with a few investment properties under your belt.

Let me say it plainly: no one needs to earn more than $100,000 a year. No one needs to own more than $100,000 in assets. The only thing wealth accumulation beyond that does is break down community, hoard power, and generate stress for the rest of us. We have the means to correct this. We simply choose not to—because the people who make the laws are also the people who benefit from the inequality.

And before you raise it—no, this isn’t about communism, and it’s certainly not about punishing success. It’s about drawing a line between having enough and taking more than your fair share.

The Only Obstacle Is Parliament’s Reflection

Let’s be honest: the resistance isn’t coming from the Liberal benches. We already know where they stand—on the side of property developers, fossil fuel donors, and tax-dodging trusts.

The real disappointment is Labor. The party that once stood for workers now bristles at even modest conversations around hard wealth ceilings. Why? Because the front bench is stacked with six-figure salaries, supercharged retirement accounts, and homes that have more spare rooms than tenants.

It’s not ideology. It’s personal interest. Some MPs don't oppose wealth caps because they believe it’s bad policy. They oppose it because it would apply to them.

And yet they claim to govern for the many.

Happiness Is a Policy Goal

We’ve been trained to measure success by GDP. By quarterly earnings. By investor confidence. But ask any exhausted nurse or underpaid teacher what they’d trade for an easier life, and it won’t be another percent of economic growth. It’ll be time. Rest. Stability. Dignity.

An income cap restores that.

• Imagine a society where housing prices are pegged to community needs—not investor profits.

• Where healthcare and education aren’t shaped by private equity firms and lobbyists.

• Where careers in caregiving, teaching, and the arts are not “sacrifices,” but viable paths to a good life.

It’s not utopian. It’s moral sanity.

You cannot fix housing without confronting greed. You cannot fix mental health without ending wage stress. You cannot claim to care for the planet while your portfolio outperforms it.

The path forward is clear. It only requires that we stop being afraid to ask for enough—and start questioning those who demand more.