You're saying the deffinition of poverty is floating? I get that a $$ value is assigned, but the standard of living assigned for "poverty" hasn't change has it?
The rich do get richer, the poor grow in population. (i.e. population "get poorer")
I'd say nearly by definition it's not a fallacy, rich people don't put the money back into the system, and in the important areas. There is only so much a single person can consume
, the rest is litteraly keeping the monies out the other people's pockets.
Upto about 60k annual or so it's a standard of living issue, after that value, it's fun and games. It's no wonder the dicotamy between ideals of poor people & rich people in this context is what it is.
The fallacy is in rich people's greed for wealth; specifically the line "I've earned it."
. It's a meaningless objective/argument to someone who is hungy, in need of healthcare or to poor to become sufficiently employed (educated).
I want to point out, in case it's not transparent, that I'm comparing those in poverty to those with say wealth in the 10's of millions & up, where the gap is blatant. Like I said, after a relatively low level of income, it's fun & games, trully. So a simular comparison could be made between those in poverty and those of mediocre income.
Said different, I see no moral issue with "I have to take the bus", and someone who happened to get in on an "sure win" IPO drives a ferrari as a result.