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

It is now fairly generally accepted thatThe 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.

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.