In the US and the UK, growing frustration with the neoliberal economic system produced some radical, if not revolutionary, political outcomes that are proving damaging in their early stages: the election of Donald Trump, and the shock Brexit decision.

That frustration has spread to Australia, where despite the claims of Treasurer Scott Morrison, on many measures inequality has also risen. The World Wealth and Incomes Database shows that the share of total income going to the top 1 per cent of Australians has nearly doubled since the early 1980s, rising to 8.3 per cent on the latest count – the highest since the 1950s.

Looking at the Gini coefficient, another measure of wealth distribution, between 2003-04 and 2007-08 income inequality worsened by almost 10 per cent. It improved after the Global Financial Crisis, but the gains have been lost since.

There are lessons from the US and UK that Australian voters and politicians can draw, now that inequality is changing political debate. Not least is that these problems are dangerously easy to exploit for political gain, simple answers win votes, but most quick fixes present their own problems and probably won't quell inequality anyway.

It's through this prism the country should view Bill Shorten's promises that a Labor government would reduce inequality; that is, with scepticism. Oppositions already have the luxury of the sideline when suggesting solutions to problems. But rising inequality is a debate even more skewed in favour of outside voices, meaning they can trade more in distortion, emotion or symbolism without consequence.

In this year's budget, the Coalition's bank levy shows that the incumbent isn't immune to gross symbolism in an inequality debate either.

But the cornerstone of Labor's inequality pitch, taxes on trusts, is an easy sell given the rise in anti-establishment feeling. It targets arguably a reasonable means by which family members share their money with one another. Its value is first a symbolic one for Labor, although middle class families use trusts too. There are larger structural causes of inequality in Australia that Labor could try solving.

The contours of inequality no longer exist on traditional class lines but fester within socioeconomic categories. It exists in Australia on many divides. When it comes to housing, it's young and old. With pay, it's men advantaged over women. On jobs and industry, regions languish and most cities thrive. Look at a map of Australia's economic growth, and there's a south-east versus north and west imbalance too. We know how Labor wants to tackle housing inequality. But how will it speed the wages growth of lower income groups, and develop new industries in states hit by the decline of manufacturing and mining?

These problems will need much less symbolic answers, and ones that might not sound as good to a public impatient with harder, longer-term solutions.