A Reasonable Approximation
…and then don't seem to realize that the thing they're quoting is saying "rich people spend less money than poor people, and that's why they're rich". It seems to me that people interpret it as saying various different things, but rarely the thing it's quite obviously saying.
Here's an oversight in my previous complaint: I didn't look at Wikipedia. I picked up vibes from a few internet randos, but not the specific internet randos who edit the world's premier encyclopedia.
Part of what I want to point out here is "there's no consensus on what the term boots theory refers to". If I'm wrong about that, and just happened to read the wrong internet randos, it seems likely that Wikipedia will tell me what the consensus is. So let's take a look.
The Sam Vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory, is an economic theory that people in poverty have to buy cheap and subpar products that need to be replaced repeatedly, proving more expensive in the long run than more expensive items.
Come to think of it, this is actually a stronger claim than what I called level 1 boots theory. I described that as "being rich enables you to spend less money on things", but this is a specific way that being rich enables you to spend less money on things. Maybe it is worth having a term for this distinct from "ghetto tax", which is what I suggested previously. (But that term shouldn't necessarily be "boots theory".)
