If you take a conversation about the exploitation by the rich and center it to the relatability of the not rich you lose crucial elements

Tax havens being used to shield their wealth
What tax avoidance takes from local communities
How their overrepresentation in local and global politics skews the narrative
What assets of that size passed down between generations does to the economy
The scale of their decisions
The subsidizing of their failures

Etc

Using an example of paying for a house is so narrow that using it as an analogy completely warps the debate.
It’s not that you understood. It’s that now you’ve centered your thinking on something relatable. The wealth of the ultra rich and how devastating in ripples that is to the world can’t be understood in terms of how me and you live our day to day lives.


The mega rich will GLADLY talk to you about percentages in numbers. Because then they treat the debate like it’s actually comparative.