I have found that people, despite protestations to the contrary virtually always argue for policy that they believe would benefit them personally in some way.

I have found that people, despite protestations to the contrary virtually always argue for policy that they believe would benefit them personally in some way. I came to this realization after reading and watching fairly extensively the arguments against income inequality. I personally feel that lack of opportunity is a waste of human resources as surely countless great people who would have shaped society for the better have died without leaving that impact due to lack of access to capitol. Now 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day, in my view these are the true victims of income inequity yet as I watched debate after debate these people were never mentioned. In fact the people debating seemed to believe that relatively wealthy, often educated Americans would be the beneficiaries of a more "fair" (fairness is debatable and outside of the scope of what I'm saying here) income distribution. That isn't the case as per capita incomes if all global GDP were distributed equally would be around ten thousand dollars per person before taxes, much less than the vast majority of Americans receive as cash income not counting government programs (remember all governmental services must be paid out of that ten thousand. Roads, police, healthcare, food stamps, etc). Thus income inequality isn't the problem they are attempting to resolve instead they are attempting to resolve it in a very limited arbitrary scope that happens to improve their own personal fortunes while ignoring most of the world that is suffering to a greater extent than they will ever experience. This is not to say a particular group is bad, just that their ideas no matter how cleverly disguised are at their core about promoting self interest just like everyone else. I expect the people who voted leave had similar intentions as did the remain voters, naked self interest.