This is not hyperbole. Everyone seems to be assuming that "burn it all" only does minor damage. (The wealthy lose 10%? That's your definition of "burn the system"?) But succeeding in trying to take down the system really takes down the system. It's not just the kind of minor blip you're talking about.
Well, for one, that's exactly what I mean.
I've hit the half-century mark with pretty much nothing to live for.
My last full-time gig went to India, after I was asked to train two people in India who after 2 months still had no clue.
Every time you read about system X being breached and Y hundreds of thousands of PII and financial records compromised?
Well, I think of those two hapless fellows in India. And the VP's and C-suite schmucks who saved a few bucks and made a few bucks more for themselves by screwing over their own systems.
Let it burn.
P.S. Nothing wrong with Indians. But in this particular circumstance, they and their circumstances were totally incompetent with respect to the job at hand.
And... inequality is an enormous problem in India, as well.
Finally, it's been argued repeatedly and, IIRC, demonstrated at least in some social science research and papers as well as in e.g. fMRI studies and the like, that a primary role of the human mind is comparative analysis and ranking.
The low end may lose a lot, but if it destroys some of degree of ranking, it may prove to be an advantage.
And, in chaos, you end up ranked primarily with your local peers, as opposed to regional and strategic forces. You may be miserable, but socially, you may have more value.
(Think of the tremendous and enduring bonding experience of "grunts" in the military. On the one hand, you are the low end of the low -- cannon fodder. On the other, you are essential to your unit. The latter, for many, proves to have enormous value. My Great Uncle Joe continued to attend his unit's reunions well into his 80's, until shortly before he passed.)
So... Until you place that misery in context, you have not qualified it from a human perspective.
If everyone in the bottom 50% loses 1% of their wealth while everyone in the top 50% loses 10% of their wealth, those initially at the bottom, while now still likely at the bottom, are now (when considered relatively) doing significantly better than they were before. They would rationally vote for such a deal. If you don't believe that, look at the reverse: when you get a 1% raise and your neighbor gets a 10% raise, you end up worse off. (Look at Bay Area housing prices when one group of people quickly becomes wealthier than everyone else)
1: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-perce...