> Why is it an issue that wealth is not as insulative as it once was against crime?
I think it depends on social context, but at least in the US, and I would suspect in much of the West generally, people work to acquire wealth primarily to better the lives of themselves and their family, and a big portion of that is where they live (e.g. a home purchase is usually the largest purchase in any person's life). Given that, if you cannot reliably buy a home in a safe place, it leads to significant increased risk for productive members of society and general breakdowns in social cohesion. I don't want to be that guy, but I see parallels between our current zeitgeist and the fall of the Roman Empire.
> What about those who want wealth but can't acquire it but also do good in a community to prevent crime? What if we were forced to make communal change instead of buying our way out?
"Buying your way out" is a form of communal change, it's literally the basis of suburban living, HOAs, inner-metro townships & associated township policing, et al. I don't know of anyone who "wants wealth but can't acquire it", I know of many people that want some subset of what wealth might bring and are unwilling to do the things necessary to acquire what they want. Unwillingness and inability are not the same, nor is materialism and safety/piece and quiet.
> Children across all spectrums of wealth have engaged in vandalization or theft for the entirety of humanity, whether for social media points or other variations of clout.
Yes, anti-social behavior is part of the human condition, but generally speaking is confined in some way except in times of social strife and turmoil. By most metrics this is not a time of social strife and turmoil, but we are seeing a rise in anti-social behavior that would indicate that it is.