My point was to call attention to the inanity of this argument we keep hearing over and over again from middle class people who want to have it easy while also

My point was to call attention to the inanity of this argument we keep hearing over and over again from middle class people who want to have it easy while also feeling good about themselves that they're on the "poor people's side" trying to save them and make their lives better, while in actuality doing diddly-squat. It's the oft-cried tripe of the modern middle-income West. See somebody having a harder time than you? It's okay! Just tell them how it's so wrong that they're suffering and rich people ought to just... give them stuff! There - feel like a good person now, don't you? Good deed for the day = done. The fact is, there's somebody out there somewhere in the world who could be living a significantly enhanced life if our good writer were to put his money where his mouth is and donate a portion of his income to him/her - perhaps an impoverished individual in South America, or Africa, or Asia, who gets by on a meager $300 a year. Could our writer donate $3,000 to one of these individuals every year, and change her life? Perhaps another $3,000 to another individual still? Think of all the good he'd be doing... according to his very own argument. But he's not doing that, is he? What's he doing instead? The same thing every middle class Western person does: he talks. About how horrible it is that poor people are poor, and how evil it is that rich people are rich. It's class preservation 101: put the spotlight on the bigger target, and keep it off of you. Nobody raises taxes on the middle class if everybody's upset at the upper class.