I believe you can. I think the people you’re talking about would be the same way whether they were rich or poor.
Viktor Frankl (neurologist, psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor) spent his life studying people. In Man’s Search for Meaning, he says that we do the world a disservice when we judge by race, creed, color, gender and that there are only 2 kinds of people: those who have the capacity for evil and those who do not.
Chuck Feeney “should be” on that list of the world’s richest people. But he’s not, because of philanthropy. He gave it all away. Forbes calls him the James Bond of Philanthropy. In India — Azim Premji would also be a billionaire, but has given 63% of his money to charity.
J.K. Rowling was the first writer billionaire, except she’s not on the rich list, either, because of how much she’s donated to charities.
Dolly Parton gives most of her money away and still today sends over a million books a month to children. Nicky Minaj has paid off fan’s education debt and runs her own charity. Know why Elton John was knighted? For how much he’s given to charity. Angeline Jolie gives 1/3 of everything she earns to charity. The list goes on.
People who are despicable human beings would be the same if you took all their money away. Money didn’t make them that way and money doesn’t corrupt good people. It’s just a magnifier that makes us more of who we already were.
That said, if we had legislation that limited the disparity between wages at the top and wages at the bottom, less charity would be required in the world in the first place.
In the last 40 years, CEO salaries have increased over 1000% while worker salaries have increased a mere 10.9% — not even enough to keep up with inflation. We need legislation to prohibit that.
But if Frankl knew his work, and I believe he did — it tells us something about the people making the legislation, doesn’t it? It’s not that they are wealthy — it’s that they are despicable and uncaring excuses for human beings.