Humans have an innate sense of fairness that isn't satisfied by "everyone played by the same rules, so wildly different outcomes are ok." Eventually resentment builds up and an extra-legal solution transpires.
If a mob demands sacrifice we must appease it? That sounds very different to the story of poor people's plight. Especially if you consider that random condition will create winners and losers.
We can try to fight against human nature all we want, but the Peasant's Revolt, the French Revolution, American Revolution, Haitian, Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc all stem from a group feeling like things weren't fair. Convincing the aristocracy that they need to change the system so to one that doesn't create winners and losers, doesn't seem to work, so nature has a pressure relief valve whether they want one or not.
It produces a two tier society where different rules apply to the rich and the poor.
It insulates the rich from the negative impact their actions have on the poor.
It results in the rich having a much greater say in democracy than the poor.
It produces problems when the rich and the poor are competing for resources (e.g. housing).
It can encourages the market to focus on the desires of the rich at the expense of the desires of the poor.
It damages social cohesion due to the rich and poor having increasingly different life experiences and worldviews.