Every time I've had this conversation it boils down to a feeling that it is morally wrong to be rich. There's some logical fallacy at the root of the feeling, l

Every time I've had this conversation it boils down to a feeling that it is morally wrong to be rich. There's some logical fallacy at the root of the feeling, like "they must have done something bad to get where they are" or "they have so much because they took it from someone else". The first is just a feeling without evidence in the hypothetical. If we're talking about a specific case of a specific rich person that did something wrong to get their riches, we can likely agree. But making a blanket statement like that is stereotyping for the sake of creating an "us-vs-them" scenario. It presumes facts not in evidence. It also doesn't address people who truly earned what they have. The second assumes the economy is a zero-sum system, which betrays a lack of understanding of economics. It is completely reasonable to debate whether a rich person has a moral responsibility to share or help. But it is not reasonable to presume guilt solely because they have means and someone else doesn't. Being anti-rich is fashionable. I don't think there are good reasons for the stance, though. Being pro-charity, and pro-giving, or in favor of redistribution is not the same as being anti-rich. One comes from philosophy and ethics, the other from the drum-beat of envy and anger.