Agreed with the above, but...
I'm not wealthy myself - not by any reasonable Norwegian standard, but I do not buy into the Marxist agenda of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That one is deeply and unapologetically unfair to those higher up on the ability ladder.
It may well be a necessary evil for the better-offs to contribute more (and we are talking percentages here, not absolute quantities) than those of lesser means, but it's... Wrong. In my book, it is, and deeply so. As such, this kind of unfairness should be avoided where possible, but tell that to the smug socialist "we carry everyone" crowd. You see, whether or not I have the capacity to spend all my money is quite beside the point; it's my money. What makes you think some crack whore deserves a chunk of it more than I do?
As for Recusant's trinity of negative traits... Is it possible that there is a connection between having those traits and getting wealthy in the first place? If you are willing to walk over corpses of friends... Well, it does open some doors, I suppose. Of course, then there is old money, but I hypothesise that it's far easier for a "blue blood" kid to grow up a spoiled little brat than it is for a "blue collar" kid, so... Same shit, different circumstances.
Apathy, are those the same 1%, you figure? If so, I kind of want to make a stand by the above. It doesn't relate to liking pain and suffering as much as it does to being willing to tolerate it to further personal agenda. Then there is my example from earlier. Me hiring a robot in stead of a human does not necessarilly have to benefit me directly. When hiring people or putting in machines in stead, I have to do that in the company's best interests or at least set those interests above my own, no..? Hiring based solely on the perkiness of one's boobs just seems so... 1958.