Let's try to address the issues from a different angle.

It is now fairly generally accepted that:

1) the income gap has widened massively over the last 30 years, with incomes for all but those at the very top declining;

2) this is a problem – not least because, as [iThe Spirit Level[/i showed, wider inequality causes increased social problems.

Further to the latter point, lower income inequality works better for EVERYONE in a society – including those at the top end of it.

My interpretation of posters here is that few if any are asking for sacrifices from others in order to improve their own lives.

But if it is the case that lower income inequality works better for EVERYONE in a society, then:

• why would anyone not wish to do something about it, since it would be worth it even on the basis of enlightened self-interest alone;

• how do we go about doing something about it?

s'very simple, if you are low waged or unemployed then you ARE "entitled" to a government subsidy, lets call it a subsidy rather than "benefits" for what our government of all colours have done since WWII is ensure that no-one who lives in this country has to be in a situation where they cannot afford basic housing or a very basic standard of living.

Simple as that, you are entitled to these subsidies should you fall on hard times.

Sorry if you don't agree that that is equitable in a civilised society but there you are.

I agree that we should not call it "benefits" but I disagree that it should be called a subsidy.

It should be called what it was originally called and what it is in reality: Social Security.

It is a compact between each individual at the time of their birth and the government of the day. It says: "you will, when you are able, make a suitable financial contribution and in return the government will ensure that your health will be looked after, free at point of need and the government will also ensure that you will not go hungry or without warmth and shelter". That is simply making people socially secure.

Capitalists talking about 'politics of envy' is hilarifookingous, I agree.

This "politics of envy" thing.
The only time I have ever claimed any kind of financial benefit was when I was unemployed, back in the early 1990s.

I am well paid and, apart from that period, I have enjoyed a good life.
I put this down to willingness, hard work, having the right skills at the right time, a decent state education and state health care ... and a generous dollop of luck.

I am not so arrogant as to think that I achieved a good life all by myself, because I didn't.
I have benefitted greatly from the NHS and State education (grammar school) which vastly improved my chances in life.

But I look around me and I see people who work hard, people who are willing to get up in the morning, people who take a pride in providing for their families but nonetheless amongst whom are people who need a hand, people who would rather not need that hand but need it anyway.
I believe that everyone should be paid a living wage ... the old saying "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay" but the market left to its own devices forces down some pay to levels where, no matter how hard you work, you can't save for a pension, buy a house or even afford insurance.
The idea that they should simply work harder is vacuous, they are already working hard, often at multiple jobs in an environment where applicants exceed jobs by about a ratio of six-to-one.
The market fails these people.
I regard it as our duty as a civilised society to help.

I am not envious of those richer than me.
Indeed, I look at those among them whose every waking thought is "Me, me, me" and I am glad that I am not living inside their heads.
I am glad that I can't look the other way to avoid seeing children suffer just so that I have a few extra quid to spend on stuff I don't need.
They will sneer about the rare examples of people fleecing the system, blinkering themselves to the true state of society.
I pity them.

Succinct and excellently put old bean.
I also pity [ithem.[/i

Rubbish! You wish you could afford to wipe your box on £20 notes like Standee.

I'll be playing with the millionaires and multi-millionaires in four weeks time, probably dining again on a yacht that cost more than my house did, certainly visiting at least one villa that cost more than my whole street of houses and is filled with playthings that if listed on eBay would keep me in a good income for a couple of years - its all very false and much of it is done through boredom or because something else is missing from those people's lives, it all looks very nice on the surface but the reality is that it does not impress me one little bit and my attitude towards them is of ambivalence, it might even be why I keep getting invited back purely because its obvious that I don't give a damn about their wealth and am not the normal Yes-Man that they surround themselves with - its nice to play for a few days but nicer to come home to what is actually yours and have friends who don't care what you earn or whether you've got this seasons jet-ski (not last years for gods sake).

Quite. I always enjoy watching poor people claim they are happy being poor.

Why should the state pay for this that or the other? The answer is simple. The state denies people the basic freedom to live a free hunter, gatherer life off the land which as animals we should have the "right" to. As such it should assist those who cannot earn a decent living in the system that the state deems appropriate.

I've hand on heart never been remotely interested in money.
I think being single at 47 means I've been fairly fortunate in that concept.

I've had plenty, I've blown plenty, I've had nowt.

Currently receiving £71 a week.
I'll survive.

And to be perfectly honest that's why I regale against people like Standee and find them fairly unpalatable.
It's not just the financial greediness it's the greediness of his nature that is most unappealing.
If you live life and try your hardest to enjoy it, you aren't particularly interested in what people should or shouldn't have.
Just a level of decency for all would suffice for me.

I guess I shouldn't be so rounded.

Its an attitude that is very prevalent among the self employed or business owners who have created their own business from scratch - worst still are those who inherited a going concern and continue to accept the platitudes for it.

What they fail to acknowledge is that the vast majority of successful business owe their existence not to the brilliance and acumen of their owners, but to pure good fortune, the "right place at the right time" concept, the order that came out of the blue at a time when everything looked bleak, the failure of a competitor, the almost accidental discovery of a new product that within six months is a must-have - I've been there and done all of those things and claim no credit for having the first clue over what was happening most of the time and unless you're a fortune teller then neither will anyone else, the principle of ""business acumen" is plain bollax and when you get inside some businesses and see how they are run then you do start to wonder how they have ever survived for so long let alone steal a good living for the person at the top.

I'd go for most of that JC.
My older brother is the European MD of a worldwide business consortium.
He' came off a council estate, single parent (barmaid) upbringing, with no University education, and didn't particularly have to suck cock to get to where he is today.
He was just talented and knew where he wanted to be.
He is a wealthy man now but has no meaness of spirit like some on here.

More than likely he has worked hard (but so do many others) but that he had some lucky breaks along the way - see Richard Branson for someone who tried and failed quite a few times before he got the breaks, it helped that his family were slightly affluent too.

Not [iparticularly[/i?

Low in empathy/guilt, with weak conscience, good liars, fraudsters, impervious to rules, punishments, materialistic?

Some characteristics shared by the people in question in your post would you say?

If so they are showing psychopathic tendencies. You may have heard of a recent study done that likened investment bankers to psychopaths but I think the net is wider than just that ilk.

For years now I have always got very annoyed when I see some CEO or Chairmen saying things like "The business made people redundant." or really dishing out any negative news hiding behind the company. The "business" didn't do any such thing. A person or persons decided to do it and a person or persons decided who was to lose their jobs. It is the same when politicians talk about a flexible labour force being a good thing. The "labour force" is people and "flexibility" means very little job security and often low wages to boot. To hide behind such terms as "the business" or "the labour force" is at the very least narcissistic (though of course narcissism is a symptom of psychopathy).

I am sure there are good business owners out there who have many a sleepless night if they are facing having to lay people off but there are far too many people out there today who show an astonishing lack of empathy with other peoples situations.

I used to think it was the ignorance of those who had never seen at first hand any tough situations in life but that doesn't cut it. Some have and others are intelligent enough to see what the reality is for a lot of people yet they still show an amazing lack of empathy. So the only conclusion is narcissism is a lot more common than people may think!

Tried dieting you fat bastad?

If you're gonna suck cock you really do need to be particular about whose cock you suck

None that he's informed me of anyway.

Might of had to bum a couple of his gaffers along the way, mind.

No bread for six weeks.
No takeaway for six wks.
4 miles down the railway lines daily.

Got a wedding Saturday.
New suit, new white shirt (just to show the tan off) and new electric blue silk tie.

They will be flocking.

How does one 'not particularly' suck a cock? Surely one is either sucking a cock, or one is not.

Can we please kept the bad language down please.

Bad language? Think that was a cock up on my part. You're cock on, though. Won't happen again, cock.

Like others here, I've certainly had a fair share of luck, good and bad.

The only thing I've ever received was unemployment, on occasions when I have been out of work. Although as mentioned earlier, that excludes education and health care.

My own experiences of being out of work were certainly not happy or somehow rolling in it, but the biggest impact, in my experience, is on your confidence and, indeed, your sense of dignity.

I'm fortunate enough, at present (I take nothing for granted) to have regular work that pays well - allowing me, for instance not only the best lifestyle I've had, but also to save. I have long-terms aims, and I invest my own, unpaid time in those, so I'd suggest that that reflects a preparedness to out in the time to 'get on'.

But one of the major lessons of my own experiences was that you can't just do it on your own - we none of us exist in splendiferous isolation, where work, for instance, is simply the matter of getting up and the morning and deciding that we will work today. The idea of everyone running their own business would be ridiculous, so therefore we understand that, for the majority, they do the jobs required by those people who do. And if, as over the last few years, the economy is in recession, then it is patent idiocy to pretend that everyone can simply go out and get that job.

But with that comes something else: government has a role. A national economy does not - just like we worker bees - exist in isolation. Government policy affects the wider economy - and with it, people's jobs. So if that is the reality, and people accept that, then it is crass not to accept that government (the state) also supports those who, affected by downturns in the economy, cannot find work.

But to return to what I mentioned earlier: if we accept that the income gap has widened, and that that is negative for society as a whole, what do people believe should be done to tackle that?

And if people do not accept that, what is their factual basis, given the detailed statistical basis of [iThe Spirit Level[/i?

And can we, for the sake of this discussion at least, get past tribal politics and consider the issues?