A friend and I were discussing this today and he opined that what sets old money apart from simply inherited money or being descended from riches is the ability to leverage that into making more money for your generation, using personal, social and business connections. (He’s been on a Downton binge recently).
Basically, he said Old money is old money because they have figured out how to remain monied over the generations.
I have to say, I can’t disagree with that, to use one example. But what would old money do to stay money?
I don’t think that’s true. The British aristocracy was the (western) definition of “old money” for centuries but has been reduced to marrying into the merchant class to maintain its status during the last hundred years or so.
ETA: On further reflection, perhaps the distinction is that “old money” meant being a landowner. Businesses could fail, but land was always valuable (at least until recent times).
There are 4 strategies that can be used in varying forms and combinations.
Put much of the assets into a family-owned trust or corporation. The details depend heavily on the time and place, but this tends to have both legal and tax advantages.
Take advantage of the long-term growth of the stock market.
Life insurance. One thing that sets rich people apart is their use of life insurance. There’s very little like getting 2-3 million tax-free dollars to help grow your fortune. (Life insurance payouts in the US are always exempt from federal income tax.)
Tax-deferred growth, and other legal tax-avoidance strategies.
Certainly “Old Money” families were a lot more careful in the way marriages were handled, even in the best of times.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
ETA: On further reflection, perhaps the distinction is that “old money” meant being a landowner. Businesses could fail, but land was always valuable (at least until recent times).
[/QUOTE]
Certainly this is part of it. For the longest time farmland was the premier productive asset in the economy. While workshops had some additional value, the idea that a single microchip fab plant would be more productive than hundreds of acres of farmland really took the landed gentry by surprise.
Yet many surviving old money types were pretty big investors in industry as well. And these days the descendants of the captains of Industry are themselves “Old money”.
[QUOTE=leahcim]
Certainly “Old Money” families were a lot more careful in the way marriages were handled, even in the best of times.
[/QUOTE]
To a large extent they still are, I went to university with lots of old money types children in the U.K and its was exceedingly common to see them in long term relationships with some ordinary typee and then over the past few years to have routinely received announcements that Mr/Ms Oldmoney is marrying, Lady Georgina Bufton-Tufton or Ms Soandso, daughter of really rich dude.
The one American in our group also ended up doing this.
As someone who has friends and acquaintances among both old and new money (but is neither), here is my perspective:
“Old money” values legacy, stewardship, preservation of name/reputation/wealth across generations. “Old money” is private, keeps to itself (and to its like) and is used to the trappings of money. Things they own are expensive because they are of good quality, or because they have artistic value, or because they are old/unique. Old money looks down on new money as upstart, gauche, undeserving, and of minimal value.
“New money” values visibility, consumption, attention. “New money” is public, keeps to its like, but not exclusively. The things that “new money” owns are expensive because they are expensive, because they are opulent. “New money” does not or has not begun to build a legacy. New money looks down on old money because the current generation did nothing to earn it, or does not create anything.
This is largely correct. Another thing to point out is that “Old Money” tends to place a high value of “tradition” and “heritage”. Family ties back to the Mayflower and five generations at Yale and whatnot.
I think the main distinction is that Old Money often doesn’t do shit and hasn’t done it for generations. They mostly just own stuff. Like Walmart. Maybe they sit on some boards.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Paris Hilton and Anderson Cooper come from old money families. Of course, they also made their own fortunes in TV.
I would say, it takes at least 3 generations to become “old money”. Particularly if no one really remembers how your family made the money. Two generations, you’re still “Mark Zuckerberg’s kid”. Three or four, you’re a member of the Zuckerberg family…I think their grandfather made a fortune in Facebooks back in the 2000s".
Did you forget about something called the “Industrial Revolution”? Rockefeller? J P Morgan? Carnegie? DuPont? By the time microchips became a thing people got rich off of, the “landed gentry” had largely gone the way of the horseless carriage.
Raise well-educated children in a stable environment and minimise the effects of inheritance tax. IHT is swingeing over here. In the US, I believe the estate has to be worth over $10M for IHT to apply; over here it’s about $1M.
Do people normally make that distinction? By and large I’d say old money is just being born into wealth, with the “old” implying at least a couple generations removed from poverty.
Dictionaries agree; none of the definitions I can find make any mention of mannerisms or culture say.
I don’t think you need to be a special breed of person to remain monied. If your family owns a shedload of property just leasing it out would in the vast majority of places heave led to incomes that would have increased ahead of inflation. Or various investments that spread risk.
Not saying it doesn’t need a cool head but it’s a heck of a lot easier than making that money in the first place.
I think there is going to be a big difference between how this is seen in America and the UK. The UK, and paraphrasing very badly from memory, you know who is the lady who owns the big manor because she’s the only one who’ll walk into City Hall in muddy galoshes and knits older than herself.
“Old money” may not even have that much in the bank, really… but they have the connections, the respect, and leave self-worth issues to the “quiero y no puedo” (lit. “I want to and can’t”) subset of new money, the people who will never see themselves as good enough. Old money knows there are people out there with more money, longer roots and bigger houses and doesn’t give a shit. The qynp, if envy was wings they’d fly, and their need for external validation often makes them the most visible fraction of “new money”.
I don’t know, depending on how old the French lady’s money is, mud might simply refrain from attaching to her galoshes.
Abuelita and her friends definitely had that knack of looking more authoritative in spring cleanup clothing than most of my bosses in their best. If women had been allowed to become RCC priests, that bunch might have ended up getting a few cardinals.
That’s true here as well; old money sorts aren’t as concerned with actually showing off that they’re wealthy- they just always have been, and act accordingly, because their priorities are different.
You see the same exact phenomenon down the scale; often poor and working class people go FAR out of their way to show off whatever wealth they have- nice cars, flashy clothes, etc… while the middle class people who out earn them don’t feel the need to have giant rims on their cars, or show off $200 sneakers, or have clearly designer labeled clothing. They spend their money differently. They may have a minivan instead of a Lexus or Mercedes, but they get a NEW minivan every 4 years on an 8% note instead of getting that Lexus on a 60 month note at 14%. Or they get granite countertops instead of Formica, or have All-Clad pans instead of whatever cheap ones are sold at Wal-Mart. Or they may have unimpressive looking shoes that cost $175 but last for 3-4 years of daily use. Ultimately they’re not concerned with showing off to other middle class people that they’re middle class, unlike the poor/working class who are trying to show off that they’re*** not poor*** to their peers.
Old money’s the same way- they’re not showing off to their peers in the same way that new money is trying to show off to the upper middle class.
