Richard Rogers Quotes

The rich are richer, and the poor are poorer, in the city than elsewhere; and, as a rule, the greater are the riches of the rich and the poverty of the poor.

An imbalance between the rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.

The central issue of our time remains the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer.

For the good of Spain, I should like there to be rather fewer rich people and rather fewer poor.

No society is healthy when the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.

Obama's economic policies widened the gap between the rich and the poor.

There's a wealth gap that is happening, and that is all over the world, you know? The rich are getting richer and holding a higher percentage of money or wealth that's out there.

The way corporate media likes to portray America is as a homogenous whole that high-five's each other at the Super Bowl. But what we have is a grotesque disparity between the rich and poor that is only getting wider.

The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The issue of wealth inequality is ... the great moral issue of our time.

The rich are few everywhere, the poor many.

It is the unvarying law that the wealth of the community will be in the hands of the few ...

Hunger, the inseparable companion of the poor, is the offspring of the unequal distribution of the wealth and the injustices in this world. The rich do not know hunger.

…well-ordered republics have to keep the public rich and their citizens poor…

The biggest drag on global growth in the coming decade will be income polarization.

No harm is done by the possession of Luxury by some people if only at the same time EVERYBODY HAS ENOUGH. The wrong incurred by the rich toward the poor lies solely in the fact that while they revel, the poor starve

We learned many years ago that the rich may have money, but the poor have time.

It is easy to say that there are the rich and the poor, and so something should be done. But in history, there are always the rich and the poor. If the poor were not as poor, we would still call them the poor. I mean, whoever has less can be called the poor. You will always have the 10% that have less and the 10% that have the most.

There's not a lot of wealth throughout all the country shared equally.

I don't really care much about what the top one per cent earn. The gap we ought to care about in wealth is between the middle and the bottom.

I would say I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, if that contradiction can make sense, because in Bolivia, we have a great problem, which is the inequity of income distribution. The rich aren't that rich, but the poor are very poor.

Half the U.S. population owns barely 2 percent of its wealth, putting the United States near Rwanda and Uganda and below such nations as pre-Arab Spring Tunisia and Egypt when measured by degrees of income inequality.

The world is richer than ever, and the gaps between rich and poor are wider.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

Growing richer every day, for as rich and poor are relative terms, when the rich are growing poor, it is pretty much the same as if the poor were growing rich. Nobody is poor when the distinction between rich and poor is destroyed.