It's getting downvoted because it's far too similar-sounding to the dreaded S word. I think the reason the wealthy by and large won't "put their efforts into r

It's getting downvoted because it's far too similar-sounding to the dreaded S word. I think the reason the wealthy by and large won't "put their efforts into reforming tax systems and global finance in order to help make the world more fair and just" is precisely because they believe the world already is "fair and just." In a world where money is the single largest broadcaster of a whole slew of societal signals --your caste, your worth, your success, your legitimacy-- finding yourself with lots of money tends to reinforce the notion that you must be doing it right already. To the extent that there are problems in the world, it seems the wealthy feel almost universally as if their own resources and philosophies are best suited for remedying them, rather than governments or other collective structures or any contrasting philosophies. This precludes ever examining whether "tax systems and global finance" --or other attitudes and philosophies of the wealthy-- are the actual perpetrators of those problems. Peter Buffet argues that such philosophical transplantation is the cause of the problems the transplantation is trying to fix and that any sincere attempts to remedy society's ills must address it. Honestly, I don't think the wealthy, on the whole, are really concerned about fairness and justice in any context that parts them from their wealth. If egalitarianism was the highest value and penultimate goal, then the concept of extracting surplus value from others' labour and keeping it for yourself would be thrown out entirely. Suggest that however, and you get thrown under the bus for being a pinko-commie-socialist-marxist-anarchist-class-warfaring-moocher-taker-leech.