Bad news= good headlines=better ratings= better shift in money markets for people to be miserable (Rich get richer & the poor get poorer) {when I find Rich.... I'm going to beat seven colours of crap out him...... this may take while as science has only found five}

True: Good news has no life.

But if you are among those who believe the wealthy are not entitled to be, then it may be enlightening for you do a little research on the history of ideologies intended to ensure everyone is of equal social and economic status.

Just to give you a hint: The greatest divide between rich and poor has traditionally been most vividly realised in regimes which obsessively claim to operate solely in the "best interests of the people", and have typically used the words "socialist", "people's republic" or "democratic republic" in their name.

Let me know what you find.

The past is the past. It doesnt mean that we cant dream of a new and fairer way than the current form of capitalism.

If you think that is fair and civilised that (for example, using your favourite country the USA) 1% of the population own 50% of the wealth, then you are either one of that 1% and an egomaniac or one of the 99% and delusional

Well, I certainly agree that such figures don't seem fair somehow, but I would indeed question those numbers, because a lot of that rhetoric is bound to be both politically and emotionally motivated. There is indeed significant motivation to exaggerate at this moment in history, especially after Wall St. has been allowed to destroy much of the wealth in the world by being allowed to operate without competent oversight.

People are hurting, and naturally, they can't understand why their neighbour can have twice what they do. It's human nature. Besides, it's an election year in the US, and we all know how stupid that gets. Prepare to be innundated with the most ridiculous set of bollocks presented in the most believable way...

And I really don't care what links to articles you give me saying 1% or that 10 people in the world own all the wealth - I can find equally as many counter examples, and besides, the actual facts are likely to prove that those numbers are greatly exaggerated, as would be expected in the current climate.

I'd be more inclined to suggest that something serious needs to be done about the massive influence the financial system has on politics - something I do believe is out of control - worldwide - not just in the US. After all, if you really believe the current crisis in Europe has nothing to do with the influence of the finance business on European politics, then you really should either become knowledgeable about it, or be quiet.

(and by the way, in case you hadn't noticed, Europe is currently in a lot worse condition than the US, and it's getting worse - in fact, if it weren't for Europe's inability to implement a recovery strategy, the US would be in even better shape).

Unfortunately, finance has influenced politics since the beginning of civilisation, and separating that influence is probably an unrealistic expectation. Perhaps the best we can hope for in our lifetime is a regulatory environment which helps keep the lid on.

But I would never subscribe to the emotionally-motivated theory that prohibiting wealth, or taking it away from those who have it to give to those who don't, could ever be good for society (or even sustainable). The ability to create and possess wealth has served us extremely well so far, and the historical alternatives have proved seriously deficient at serving the population.

Lifes not fair. If the rich aren't doing well then neither is anyone else. Be careful what you wish for.

It isnt as black and white as saying rich = bad and poor = good

But we are also not talking about someone earning twice as much as someone else as amideislas said, the difference is far far greater than that

In the 60s a CEO earnt around 10 times more than the average worker in their company. Now a CEO earns 100 times more than the average worker in their company

What has driven this 10 times increase for CEOs and a reduction in wages for everyone else (in real terms)? To put it simply, the stock market that rewards short-termism which leads to asset stripping and de-skilling of companies by CEOs in order to boost their bonuses

The long term prognosis will be much worse than it should for the company, but then the CEO doesnt care, he's made his millions by then

And yes, finance and politics has always been entertwined (the history of the Jews in Europe is a prime example), now more than ever. The battlefield is being drawn between the EU who want a more closely regulated finance sector and the UK/US who want to keep making hay in a deregulated sector

I hope the EU solution wins. Finance should be the oil that lubricates the wheels of business and not the final product itself

Well, don't hold your breath. The EU has difficulty deciding whether to wind their watch or go to the loo.

Besides, if you look carefully, you'll find that the "financial regulation" that Merkozy are proposing is much more about tax collection than regulation. The finance industry is still the single most powerful lobby in any government today. That's the whole problem.

Well thats the problem too!

The richest companies and individuals are the ones who dont pay any (or many) taxes!

It is morally abhorant. It reminds me of the Rock Stars in the UK who beg you for your money at charity concerts while not paying a penny in UK tax thanks to them being resident their tax paradises (yes Bono and the Rolling Stones I am talking about you)

I'm sorry, you must have confused "tax collection" with "tax evasion". They are different things.

"Tax Collection" is when a government collects taxes to support the functioning of the government. Fiscal policies vary between governments. Some governments subscribe to a "low taxation, low entitlement, higher growth" philosophy, while others subscribe to a "higher tax, higher entitlement, lower growth" strategy.

In times of trouble, those in the former category tend to cut interest rates, taxes, and make only "surgical" budget cuts, which traditionally leads to economic growth as a result.

Those in the latter category historically choose to cut entitlements rather than lower taxes, and traditionally this results in slower growth, but maintains a greater tax base. Often the entitlement cuts never return, enabling the government to continue to collect more tax while minimising burdens.

"Tax evasion" is when residents or citizens of a specific country obliged to pay taxes in that country consciously evade paying the taxes assessed under the country of residence, and in some cases, country of citizenship.

Since you brought it up, it's worthwhile noting that UK and Irish citizens not resident in the UK or Ireland are not obliged to pay tax, and particularly on income not generated in those countries.

This is true in Germany as well, which has the highest percentage per capita of wealthy citizens choosing to reside and conduct their business outside of Germany to avoid the the moderately high levels of taxation and government spying in Germany - all of which is entirely legal both for the citizen and the government.

Germany has the single most aggressive tax collection agencyin the EU. It is so aggressive, in fact, that the German "finanzamt" (HMRC equivalent) is the single most powerful arm of the German government, and holds a licence to conduct its affairs as it sees fit largely without due process. The German finanzamt has free access to virtually any German bank account of every taxpaying citizen in Germany, and can freely view all transactions and even extract money if they decide that taxpayer has not met all it's tax obligations. Due process is recommended, but not obligatory.

In fact the German finanzamt has repeatedly engaged in illegal espionage in foreign banks in an attempt to collect as much tax as possible. The most notable was €5M they paid a bank employee in Liechtenstein to deliver a complete list of all clients holding accounts in that bank, from all countries, not just Germany.

The "regulation" that Merkozy have in mind "hamonises" the tax and financial regulation law throughout the EU, adds some new taxes and an EU federal tax as well, which, surprise, is proposed to be modeled after the German tax system. The primary objective is to increase tax collection, both from personal income, and to tax the financial system itself on many types of financial transactions.

Tax evasion, while a serious problem for Greece, comparatively represents only an insignificant level of revenues uncollected in the EU, and even if all tax evaders could be forced to pay, the revenues would still be far short of having any significant impact on the several trillion euro hole that is currently facing the EU. So, while tit's important to enforce tax evasion law, it has limited potential of delivering any significant tax revenue growth.

If in the unlikely event that such a proposal were to actually be approved and implemented, it would be expected that much of Europe's financial industry would simply leave the Eurozone for the US, Middle east, or other countries (UK?) where such taxes would not be imposed.

The UK is heavily dependent upon the financial sector, and therefore Cameron had little choice but to veto and pull out.. Such a plan would put the UK in very serious jeopardy.

During my student days, I was a liberal thinker, and even toyed with communism. While working for employers, I retained my liberalism, and joined unions.

Hard work and some good fortune allowed me to go into business. I remember bursting with honesty and wanting to pay taxes even before they were due. I employed a major tax accountant and kept the most meticulous books ever seen.

After my first year of hard work and showing a decent gross profit, I duly presented my accountant with all my records. The major company had allocated a young employee to deal with me, he had only just qualified and was as keen as I was to do everything by the book.

To summarise, I had worked for a year for next to nothing, my employees were better off then I was.

The young accountant told me that I had come to the wrong firm of accountants, and recommended a much smaller outfit, run by his uncle.

The uncle took the time to educate me and told me never to bring all those daft cardboard boxes full of receipts into his small office, where there wasn't even room for them, and he didn't want to see them anyway.

A year later I had ditched my liberal ways, bought red braces and voted for the Tories, though I remember blushing at the time. My company bought me a nice, red GTI for me to show off in.

That's how it is in life, unfortunately; you promote a worker and he will get richer, and will not worry about his former co-workers getting poorer. The size of the gap widens and the millions of people walking down the street waving banners will not make a blind bit of difference.

We're still in our caveman days, the man with the biggest club gets the nicest crumpet.

Except it is not club size anymore it is the thickness of your wallet have you seen Bernie Eccleston then look at his wife and ask your self how did he do it?

He might be a little guy but how do you know he hasn't got an enormous club?

Don't tell me he has another one.
If so I'd be wondering more about the thickness of his head.
The last one is said to have walked off with a billion or so quid.
A very nice little earner.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mot...n-divorce.html

I would like to feel sorry for little Bernie, but find it hard. But if the Croatian lady gets half, he'll still be left with close to a billion, and not that many years left to spend it.

But it must be hard to learn such an important lesson so late in life.

the Democratic People's Republic of Korea