Barry, if such a large proportion of wealth is privately owned - or controlled - by such a small minority, as Mark mentioned in his point 3 of post 27, this excludes the vast majority from any meaningful participation in the economic wealth.
This in turn cripples consumer-motivated economy, as many people consume less than they would, as they can't afford this, that and the other, essential things, such as having a rusty railing sanded down and painted with three coats of paint.
Of-course one could make many examples, i.e buy cheap clothes from China rather than a home-tailored dress made locally.
And so on...
But all this must surely cripple the productive economy in general, because when peole can't afford what they need, and only buy some things but not others, then the factories employ less people, and shops close down.
So, my view that there should be a more equal distribution of wealth would not put the economy out of business, but revitalise it.
For the record, I believe doctors, nurses and teachers should earn more, and also factory workers, and I have nought against the odd executive earning 100.000 £s a year, or even 2,000 k.
It's these characters that privately own tens and even hundreds of millions in assets that could be relieved of some of their surpluss burden.
