Exactly. There has always been, and will always be an Income Gap. "Rich as Croesus" was a popular expression from 500 BC Greece.There are those individuals who inherit fortunes or create wealth and provide employment, and there is a great rump of people happy to turn up daily and get paid for their labours. It matters not a jot to most people, that there are people in the City earning 7 figure bonuses, apart from a wish that they themselves were bright enough to have such a job. Envy, is a perfectly natural emotion, but when that becomes your raison d'etre, then you are never going to be a happy chappy, wherever you are on the social/financial scale.

The only people still whinging in Political terms about the unfairness of life, are those misguided enough in their youth to hitch their star to Communism, and 20 years after its collapse, have not come to terms with it. In amongst that sullen band will be a few old Socialists, who hark back to their glory days of Scargill and his like, and miss the destructive negative ability they once had to hold society to ransom. But not their Union member funded perks of course....expect to pay the going rent on a London flat?.... How Dare You Sir!

We are still a fairly affluent country, we spend many millions on aid abroad, are amongst the first to respond in any disasters, and if there are foodbanks being provided in the UK for those people who need them, then surely that simply underlines that we live in a caring society?

Christ, even Coddy has a new van!

In effect, you say that: 'Oh well, it's always been like that and always will be', in which case, why try to improve the lot of one's fellow citizens?

Given who has agreed with your post, perhaps that tells you something.

Excellent post.

There seem to be a lot of negative posters on these forums. The types that will always focus on the negatives in even the most positive stories. Very sad.

Got any answers to all the questions you've been asked?

Oh look – already run away again.

Mintball - you are all for lessons in simple economics. As Mrs Merkel pointed out last year Europe has 7% of the world's population, 25% of global GDP and 50% of global social spending. Some questions for you:

What do you think will happen if that state of affairs is not addressed?

Do you think it's fair that we have so much of the cake when others have so little?

Do you really think that the global cake will expand to c.7 times its current level in the short-term so that we can justify that level of spending based on your concept of what's fair?

Come on Dally – you can do better than that.

If you really believe what you imply here, then you'll obviously object to a very small minority of the UK population having so much of the nation's wealth.

Come on Mintball - that was poor. As you well know, I was implicitly referring to you obsession with inequality. So, if you object to it you'll be happy for the UK and the rest of Europe to have a much smaller share of the cake.

You first need to define "social spending"

There's no "obsession".

And you're another one who dodges the main questions. Since there is evidence that the greater the income gap the worse the social outcomes for ALL, what do you think should be done about it, or would you prefer to do nothing and simply be able to continue whinging about the said social outcomes whenever news stories about them arise?

The bulk of the world's wealth is concentrated in a relatively few hands. That's shouldn't be a cause for celebration.

It should not be beyond the whit of man to build more sustainable economies across the world.

The only reason we cannot at present 'feed the world' is, at core, greed, short-termism and downright nuttery.

It would take some attitude changes, but it doesn't mean a "smaller share" of some imaginary cake – with shares divvied out by whom? The banks and financial institutions that are a large part of the problem?

Well it's quite obvious if that Europe is spending more public money than other parts of the world its economy will struggle to compete and so its living standards fall as will its ability to have a big social spend. It's a fact that will make things worse for more or less everyone. Despite Mrs Merkel's warnings the German coalition is following a dangerous path and its economy is starting to suffer. France with its strange leader is already a basket case.

Why do people on the left always equate throwing money at something equalling improvement? We throw more money per head at school kids in this country than most places and get worse outcomes. In my day I went to a school that had relatively poor, outdated facilities but good teachers and outcomes were pretty good. Mrs Dally went to a similar establishment and her school produced the best outcomes in the county. Indeed, I would argue that an austere environment is preferable when it comes to education. Comfort breeds complacency (which in a wider sense has become a national problem). It's not what you spend, it's how you spend it that counts.

Thank you.

You've not answered a single point I've made.

Let's put it another way: if wide income inequality affects social outcomes negatively, then it will cost more money than narrower income inequality that affects social outcomes less negatively.

So that's saving money, not 'throwing' it at anything.

As one who benefited from the top tier of an elitist education system (yes I passed my 11-plus) I'm not in a good place to comment, let it suffice that we had a good quality of teaching staff across the board who used very different methods to those which my children received, sometimes those different methods worked sometimes they didn't but the facilities at our elite grammar school were as good as they came in the 1970s and they produced the doctors and lawyers that are still servicing our society now, and they produced me, not that they'd ever admit to that.

Good teaching staff in an austere setting will not produce results as well as good teaching staff with good facilities and for this you need public investment and a government who has the will to keep investing and not just throw "emergency funding" at a problem that is highlighted by a press campaign and that only exists because funding was not made right at the start - you can't teach kids in a field no matter how good a teacher you are.

Really good post.

Both of my (state) grammar schools, with quite different intakes and catchment areas, were rated very highly. And neither was poorly equipped or with leaky roofs etc.

I'm still waiting for Dally's definition of "social spending"