If you own a Bentley, you’re either very rich, or just spent all your money on a Bentley

Edit: I’ve been told some people needed clarification that I’m not talking about Bentleys worth their weight in scrap metal.

Good question. I haven’t got an answer for that. We could start off by pruning off the top; anyone with a net worth above a billion can’t possibly have earned that kind of money. 900 million is just as unlikely.

A modicum of luck obviously plays a part as well; Facebook for example started off as a fairly innocuous website for ranking the attractiveness of university students; poor in taste and judgement but hardly evil. That’s not exactly where we are today, is it? Have you read about how facebook treats its content moderation team? Ol’ Zucky is responsible for that and so much more.

There’s only so much you can earn through hard work and good luck before you’ll start having to make unethical and evil choices to keep raking in the cash. Rich people don’t need or deserve any empathy, because they won’t have any for you.

If you can accurately state how much you’re worth … chances are you’re not that rich

Actually the poor tend to give a higher portion if their total wealth to charity than the rich.

No

The statistical data disagrees with your anecdotal evidence.

This is only tangibly related to your comment, but even before you get the unemphatic part, the regressive taxes alone set rich people apart from poor people. If you make enough money have to pay taxes at the lowest bracket in the US it’s 10% taxes with minimum $22k a year income. That is $2200 a year, which is a crazy amount for them to be able afford when someone in the highest tax bracket is paying 37% and it doesn’t start until $578k for a single filing. That’s about $214k in taxes with about $364k left over to be as empathetic as they want to be with it. It would take the person who is paying 10% in taxes 16.5 years just to make what the person who is making half a million a year makes AFTER TAXES!

It’s very hard for either group to be empathetic to the other, but for vastly different reasons.

I am very bad at public math if anyone sees a glaring issue.

Mill very well expresses the essence of the matter in the form of a concept by characterising money as the medium of exchange. The essence of money is not, in the first place, that property is alienated in it, but that the mediating activity or movement, the human, social act by which man’s products mutually complement one another, is estranged from man and becomes the attribute of money, a material thing outside man. Since man alienates this mediating activity itself, he is active here only as a man who has lost himself and is dehumanised; the relation itself between things, man’s operation with them, becomes the operation of an entity outside man and above man. Owing to this alien mediator – instead of man himself being the mediator for man – man regards his will, his activity and his relation to other men as a power independent of him and them. His slavery, therefore, reaches its peak. It is clear that this mediator now becomes a real God, for the mediator is the real power over what it mediates to me. Its cult becomes an end in itself. Objects separated from this mediator have lost their value. Hence the objects only have value insofar as they represent the mediator, whereas originally it seemed that the mediator had value only insofar as it represented them. This reversal of the original relationship is inevitable. This mediator is therefore the lost, estranged essence of private property, private property which has become alienated, external to itself, just as it is the alienated species-activity of man, the externalised mediation between man’s production and man’s production. All the qualities which arise in the course of this activity are, therefore, transferred to this mediator. Hence man becomes the poorer as man, i.e., separated from this mediator, the richer this mediator becomes.

Some ‘people’ aren’t human and shouldn’t be treated as such.