[bruce511]

I understand how you can read it that way. But that is not my intent, and clearly also not true.

There are plenty of rich people who are happy to keep everything in their own name, and just live with the risk. Most of those people turn out OK.

Some percentage make the news everyday as having "lost everything". Keeping everything together mean's it all stands and falls together. A bad decision in your business means the loss of your house.

So no, I'm not saying people who disagree with me are poor. I'm saying that rich people who disagree with me have a higher appetite for risk than I do. I'll work for 40 years, I'm not prepared to lose all that accumulation in year 39. Good structures remove that risk, which is something I'm happy to pay for.

Of course this hinges on your definition of rich. Perhaps you think a billion makes you rich. Or perhaps a million. Or perhaps 20k. It doesn't really matter. Whatever you have you can decide if you can afford to lose it all, or not.

Of course by the time you have a million you have a financial advisor, who will be advocating for the same risk reduction. Which is why this approach may seem tainted to you. I'll never have a million, which is why I'm not going to risk what I do accumulate, losing it would be painful.

[amrocha]

Here's your words:

"Yes, I think there are people who ascribe negative connotations to making use of financial systems. Where I've encountered them, for the most part, they tend to be less-wealthy folk looking for some external reason for their perceived lack of success. To be honest I don't really care what they think."

You literally said that if you think the financial system is unfair you're probably poor, and you don't care what they think.

[bruce511]

>> if you think the financial system is unfair

The financial system is certainly unfair. Life is unfair, from the moment you are born to the moment you die. This has nothing to do with "fairness". This has to do with personal financial management. There are rules to the game. Use them, don't use them, it's completely up to you.

If you want to change the rules to make them more fair, then by all means go for it. I'm not sure that any system you divide will ultimately be fair since it has to operate in an unfair world. The current system protects wealth at pretty much any scale. You are welcome to leave your wealth unprotected if you choose. That's your right.

[sanderjd]

Yep, as you alluded to, the rules of "the game" are not static. It's good to advocate for changing the rules to make them more fair, and it's bad to advocate for the unfair status quo (which is what you've been doing), or changing them to be even more unfair.

[rblatz]

If you don’t have a million your probably have most of your wealth in your home (typically protected by homestead exemptions) or retirement accounts (IRAs up to 1 million and 401k have no limit). Then a simple cheap umbrella policy could fill any gaps.