I am a Tory voter but I am concerned about the inequality of wealth in this country.

Surely something needs to be done to provide a fairer society in terms of wealth distribution.

I don't think Corbyn's plan of nationalising everything really provides for that - we will just end up with loads of union-run inefficient industries.

The idea that you can the likes of Google, Amazon etc to my more tax is flawed - corporation tax is an international tax and until you can get a consensus world wide companies will always find a way around it.

Taxing the rich - they are too clever also and they already contribute significantly to the tax take.

How can this greater fairness be achieved?

Gross inequality is one of the primary causes of crime and social disruption. In a globalised economy they only way to solve the issue is a global progressive taxation policy, but that won't happen any time soon.

Give Thomas Pikety's book 'Capital in the 21st century' a read. It address the very issues you raise.

Excellent book - we will have civil unrest on a big scale if this trend continues

Why spoil a very good post by making a daft statement? I might be wrong (unusual I accept) but the only industries I have heard/read that Labour have said they will re-nationalise are rail, water, energy & Post. I deal with the first 3 in a personal & professional capacity every day & they are an inefficient disgrace. There is no argument for their privatisation.

As regards the main thrust of your post the countries that are happiest or most content (based on GDP per capita, social support, life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity and corruption levels) are those with progressive taxation levels & less disparity between high & low earners. I would be interested in how many of the top 10 most content countries have state run rail, water & energy companies. A high proportion I would wager. A country that is obsessed with greed & instant gratification is not going to be happy long term.

The unions have been suppressed since Thatcher, Blair kept them in check and Cameron/May simply continued Blair's position. We see now on Northern Rail what happens - every Saturday is a strike day - when the unions get a bee in their bonnet. Do you see that getting better if the party they basically own with a leader who has promised to re-instate all their previous priviledges gets in power. It will be like Wilson in the early 1970's.

We need a solid mixed economy - transport infrastructure should be run by the government not sure utilities needs to be - I would against foreign ownership of our utilities but my own dealings in business/domestic have been good - supply never runs out and its a fair price - yes some get ripped off but that can be easily avoided with a little common sense. Looking at the number of holes in the ground they do seem to making up for all the lack of investment during public ownership.

To get back to the original point - how do you encourage and entrepeneurs that are needed to generate wealth with a need to have a more equal money disribution. Perhaps if we had a broader manufacturing base rather than a service economy that might even things up a little. It takes a long time and significant investment to get a manufacturing business to sing - unlike a banker who just places a bet - you also need to employ bodies to get stuff made.

The Hinckley Point reactor (if it ever gets built) will leave us dependent on foreign states and companies (China and France). One of our biggest train operators is a state company (Deutsche Bahn) that own Arriva and DB freight.

The movement of a lot of state business to big outsourcing firms such as Carillion, Amey and Crapita has been massively inefficient with the added handicap of the firm avoiding culpability and responsibility. Whenever anything goes wrong the state has to pick up the tab. Up until that point a very small number of people get very rich.

Private doesn’t automatically equal more efficient – see the forensic science scandal. Nor does state owned mean more efficient either.

Some areas are too big for competition to work. Fragmenting them into smaller bits causes inefficiency and poor service (see rail). There is no “one size fits all”. That’s why ideologues on the left and right should be avoided. The aim should first be to provide an efficient and fair service to users rather it being to make money for shareholders.

In reply to the op, there is no doubt that there is a huge imbalance in wealth, accross the globe and in an ideal world something should be done to make things a little more level.
Unfortunately, this will never happen.
Those that have the wealth, with one or two notable exceptions will never shar nor relinquish their "lofty status".
Although money cant directly buy happiness, it can sure help and it also give huge influence.

Personally, I believe that the planets finite resources will be the great "leveller" at some point in the next century.
With environmental "events" likely to occur with more regularity and being more "violent", there could be a shift in how people view wealth.

The consumer society is on a collison course with nature and this will be the biggest test and threat to future inhabitents of the world.

Even with current targets for CO2, many of the western nations have been happy to "pass on" their CO2 to China and India and then try to point the finger back in their direction.

We all need to consume a hell of a lot less and move accross to renewable energy but, this simply cant happen in a world where success is measured by the volume of goods consumed.

At the risk of going all "David Ike", we could all be heading for meltdown.

Tony Blair used to say that private enterprise does risk better.

I think you’ve just summarised why that is!

If I had managed to accumulate untold wealth via hard graft why should I share it with people who can’t be bothered to get off their back sides and graft. It’s not like these billionaires work 35 hours a week. They probably work 20 hours a day so fair play to them

That's one hell of a simplistic view you've got there.

Very good and challenging post especially the second to last point - we all need to consumme less

We do. But we're also in the throws of late stage capitalism, which relies on us all consuming more and more crap to keep the dream alive, and also produces the grotesque inequality we see today.

Governments and a complicit media cheerlead the 'wealth creators'. "Don't upset the billionaires", they tell us, "otherwise they'll leave the country". We're being conned.

World leaders are obsessed with trade and growth at all costs, but infinite growth is completely at odds with the finite world we live in. Try telling that to the queues of people forming for the next shiny iPhone on release day, though.

You say a bee in their bonnet, I say a principled stand. I get the (Northern) train every day, I have not met a passenger who doesn't side with the unions on this. How is safety, security & disabled access going to work. Have you caught the last train home on a Saturday night? The striking guards have lost thousands in wages for something they believe in. It's a pity the rest of society is not so principled.

I'm not sure why you have to conclude your post by suggesting the pending environmental catastrophe is reserved for weirdos. It has been accurately predicted by respected groups and scientists for plenty of years. With regards to the main gist of your post, the reduction in resources, without strong world wide agreement, will not be a leveler; quite the opposite. The normal rules of economics are that price will go up as resources become scarce. The rich, greedy & corrupt will be circling like vultures. Do you trust the party of austerity, or Trump, to manage that situation equitably? More desperate reactions by those without resources will result. The flow of migrants will make the current situation look like a primary school dinner queue.

Why is it?