Does Less Inequality Lead To A Better Society?

I have just acquired a copy of a book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett called "The Spirit Level", which I haven't yet read but which argues that more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them - the well-off as well as the poor. The authors contend that almost every modern social and environmental problem - ill health, lack of community life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours and big prison populations is more likely to occur in a less equal society.

There is a very interesting article, in 'The Times' newspaper on 28 April by David Aaronovitch which draws on some of the material in this book to discuss the new Equalities Bill announced by Harriet Harman on 27 April. Aaronovitch says the following in his article -

"If the problem is income disparity, then the answer must be income redistribution. Logically benefits and tax relief for the low paid would go up, as would taxes for the well-off (and not just the rich). The newly un-neglected would then measure their heightened esteem in the dwindling gap between themselves and the better-off, and over time begin to see the value of education, to start reading to their children and stop smoking. Well, it's an ill wind and news of the falling number of British billionaires and Wayne Rooney's half-million tax increase, could (for all I know) be working its magic already.

We can imagine the objections to this. It would, without a culture shift, constitute a reward for idleness, a disincentive to work and require hard-working middle earners to subsidise the workshy. Until such a time, that is, that they learnt not to be workshy".

I need to read the book before jumping to any conclusions but this for me is one of the main problems with the argument that correlates equality with fewer social problems. If the correlation were that simple then giving poor people more money and thus reducing the gap between them and richer people would result in slimmer, more mentally well and less incarcerated people.

I probably parody the book's argument when I say that but it can't really be that simple can it?