A lot of them aren’t “culturally rich”. They grew up upper middle class (so a stable home life and a solid education with family support but no expectation of inherited wealth) and strongly value education and work ethic.
I would actually argue that this is a good thing. A society benefits when its most capable members continue to work hard.
Comments
Someone earning more than ~$400k per year puts them in the top 1% of income earners. They earn more than 99% of the population.
And you’re saying these people aren’t rich?
A lot of them aren’t “culturally rich”. They grew up upper middle class (so a stable home life and a solid education with family support but no expectation of inherited wealth) and strongly value education and work ethic.
I would actually argue that this is a good thing. A society benefits when its most capable members continue to work hard.
Not sure what “culturally rich” means, but if the problem is income I equality, the top 1% need to pay more taxes.
You could also use the term “leisure class”.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Cl...
I generally agree about taxes, in particular an estate tax on wealth.
Inheriting a house is inherited wealth, your baseline assumptions for wealth are completely divorced from reality.
In which sense they are the most capable?
Is a bathtub full if it just got started filling at a high rate?