Then they shouldn't expect to enjoy certain experiences. Why should poor people get to enjoy a night fancy restaurant with friends just because they work as hard as someone richer but for less money. No, keep those kind of poor people in Macdonald's please or at home with plain ham sandwiches. They can have poor people fun.
But poor people can´t pay for an expensive dinner for themselves, can they? So they won't be able to enjoy those experiences regardless.
They will be able to enjoy it if the richer host pays for it, though.
I think you have it in reverse.
If I am on benefits and my friend on a 6 figure salary wants their birthday in an expensive restaurant, should I have to pay, say, £50-100 to attend their birthday? Should I not be able to enjoy that experience because I can't afford it? Or should my friend pay so that all their friends can attend? Worse if I have more than one such friend.
What's wrong with then me forking out for a McDonalds (or some home food) for all my friends for the £50-100 that would cost me to attend each of their birthdays?
Or would the richer friends reject my poorer offering, as not worthy enough of them?
These are somewhat extreme examples, of course, but it still stands that if all go to fancier restaurants, the poorer person may think they are able to afford it better in small chunks, but is still spending a lot that they can't effectively afford, or that they would be able to throw at their own birthday if they put the same money aside regularly. Except that if they did the calculations they would think it was too much and they wouldn't be able to afford it.
This reminds me of people who think it is a good idea to put a non-urgent expense on their credit card because the smaller payments make it manageable and they can afford it that way. 