You are reading a single comment by @olaf_von_pokemon and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Is not the point here that the term 'rich' is, as said above, very much a moving feast depending on who you ask? Therefore it has the potential to resonate with the 90%+ of the population who don't earn anywhere near that amount. It serves the same sort of 'them and us rhetoric' which serves anyone going for a populist vote, which is what I suspect most parties will be looking for.
olaf_von_pokemon-
It serves the same sort of 'them and us rhetoric' which serves anyone going for a populist vote, which is what I suspect most parties will be looking for.
Yeah. Initially I thought why would he want to alienate those on that kind of money, but then perhaps he was trying appeal to people who don't earn that.
Howard
The issue here is with the word "rich" rather than the specific amount which is high for some people and not for others.
Being rich relates to what you OWN not so much to what you EARN. Linking richness to income was a mistake in the original article which led to the initial confusion and this whole discussion is subequently pretty moot.
...as you were.