B sounded nice, and it's one of the reasons that Americans (at least) would stand up for the rich. It's possibly part of "temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome." However Elon Musk completely ruined this line of logic, forever - at least for me. He said he was going to buy twitter. He was then forced to buy twitter. He then somehow came up with the 40-50 billion to buy twitter. Remember, he only had this "wealth" on paper, prior to this. Up until the minute he paid, people were saying "he only has it on paper, he can't buy it, he's going to get punished for [messing with the market or whatever]." Then the sale went through. Lots of people said he was dumb and just lost tens of billions of dollars - in fact, people still do! He "convinced" the board or shareholders of another company to cut him a check for about the same amount of money (that he only had on paper) that he bought twitter for.
this is what it read like to the average american that was paying attention to it at all. It doesn't matter if the above "isn't what really happened" - that's what was presented, in the rough order it was presented.
When you have "a billion dollars on paper", you can manipulate a large amount of perception, laws, policies - basically whatever you want. My point is, Musk was one of the only billionaires to use their wealth in the open in this way, and it eliminates the "only on paper" argument.