Your comment is a fine example of the article's point. You (and I) may need to work. But that doesn't mean there's not a large gap between us and the "poor".

Your comment is a fine example of the article's point. You (and I) may need to work. But that doesn't mean there's not a large gap between us and the "poor". Take myself for an example - I own half my house and the bank owns the other half. So, yes, I have to work for a "survive" and pay for my mortgage and food. But I only have to earn enough pay half the cost of housing, because the other half is provided by my capital. A poor(er) person has to earn enough pay 100% of their cost of housing. A rich(er) person would own their house in full, so has no need to earn to pay that cost of living. So there's clearly a scale between having to work to pay for anything, and not having to work at all because your capital pays enough dividends to cover all your bills. The article contends that the "rich" cut off point is much lower down than we think, and that this advantage is passed from generation to generation. The author says that in the UK this generational advantage is more recognised than in the US, because it is more formalised - which takes away some of the ability for people to be willfully ignorant of the advantage they've been given from birth compared to others.