not disagreeing with you, but just looking at it another way could give a fresh look and change the dialogQuote from roreilly:
As others have pointed out, poor is a relative term. As such, it is impossible to eradicate poverty. Just as it is to eliminate the bottom 10% of students or the bottom 10% of runners. Someone has to finish the race last. Someone has to be the slowest, someone has to be the fastest. It is all relative.
my definition is
50% are poor
50% are rich
when viewed that way it stirs up a lot of animosity, but also almost eliminates any and all class warfare.
It also makes it very difficult for politicians to buy votes
just something to think about, that's why I am not afraid to use the words rich or poor, because to me they have very exact statistical meaning