Because tat's are often considered tacky and low class. It's probably just stereotypes, but i think it is much more likely an under educated, unemployed piece of scum would have 5 tattoos, then a high class individual. Same with people who have piercings all over their body. Of course i don't have any evidence to back up the stereotypes, but that's how stereotypes work any way.

They're neither considered tacky nor low class, in my opinion. They're more considered distracting or unsightly... possibly unprofessional. I've seen many upper-class people with one or more tattoos. Class has little to do with it.

Those were not actual upper-class people. Some flashy people would like others to think they're upper-class, but really... no one covered in tattoos is. It may be a stereotype, but it holds some truth. Very few tattoos are truly artistic and done by a master. Most of the stuff you see in the street is done by a poorly skilled person and doesn't looks like something you'd want to have on your skin for a lifetime.

That's your subjective opinion. Just because most of it looks like crap to you doesn't mean it is crap. You also can't tell me those people I know who have tattoos and are upper-class are not upper class. Do you know them personally? No? Well, I do...

What do you mean by upper class? Do you know any Lords, Barons, Kings + Queens, or anyone with a title with a tattoo? Just throwing that out there.

My point being, you cannot tell me that just because a person is tattooed, they are not upper-class. It is possible. I don't know any royalty, so I suppose they're not that type of upper-class. But my interpretation of upper class is earning a good amount of money (i.e. 6 figures), and I know several of those people, some of which have tattoos. Tattoos do not change your personality nor do they change anything but how you look. That's it, that's all. Please, tell me you know for sure that no kings, queens, princesses, barons etc have tattoos. Perhaps they're all covered and not talked about... but that doesn't mean they don't have them.

its been popular for a very long times. Picts were covered in tattoos. Maoris still are. Not everyone gets tattoos to stand out some just want the design or to decorate their body.

Those are different cultures. The yakuza (Japanese mafia) too cover themselves in tattoos, and yet if you see a non-Japanese chick covered in tattoos walk down the street in the US you won't think "wow, she must be from the Japanese mafia", will you?! Each culture has different taboos and different expectations. And our culture does NOT tattoo for the same reasons as the cultures you listed, or as the yakuza, and so on. So your comment doesn't work.

I was trying to point out how it is not a new phenomenon but something deep rooted in the history of many people the same as piercing is. It is not something that appeared when people decided they wanted to stand out.

70% of the ruling class makes up about .7% of the population. So maybe they should just get their heads out of their asses. Finding a reason to dislike someone based on looks is a little bit out dated I'd say.