I always interpreted “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.” as saying that this is one way that the rich become richer.
Sure, and lots of people seem to do similar to you, and this is one of the things I’m complaining about. I think this is a weird interpretation of a straightforward sentence.
But also, what do you mean by “this”? If it’s “spending less money” then part of my point is that I think you’re just wrong; I think rich people spend more money. If it’s something broader, then part of my point is that it’s not clear what you do mean.
The “ghetto tax” is one place, but then there’s everything else—less stress, for instance, or being able to pay for education.
“Stress” seems like a reasonable thing to consider part of a ghetto tax, to me. “Rich people can pay for education” seems like it fits neither as part of the ghetto tax, or boots theory as originally written. Similarly, it seems like you want to count “earning interest on your bank balance” as part of boots theory, but I think that’s a massive extension from the original text.
Sure, and lots of people seem to do similar to you, and this is one of the things I’m complaining about. I think this is a weird interpretation of a straightforward sentence.
But also, what do you mean by “this”? If it’s “spending less money” then part of my point is that I think you’re just wrong; I think rich people spend more money. If it’s something broader, then part of my point is that it’s not clear what you do mean.
“Stress” seems like a reasonable thing to consider part of a ghetto tax, to me. “Rich people can pay for education” seems like it fits neither as part of the ghetto tax, or boots theory as originally written. Similarly, it seems like you want to count “earning interest on your bank balance” as part of boots theory, but I think that’s a massive extension from the original text.