The wealthy are conspicuous for their lack of consumption

Citing the 1996 book The Millionaire Next Door, co-authored by Thomas Stanley and William Danko:

The wealthy are conspicuous for their lack of consumption: "What are three words that profile the affluent? FRUGAL FRUGAL FRUGAL". The book is full of startling individual cases: the millionaire who refused the gift of a Rolls Royce because he couldn't imagine driving up in one to eat at the crummy restaurants he prefers, or throw caught fish in the back seat; the wife who, after her husband gave her $8 million in stocks, returned at once to clipping the 25 cent grocery coupons from her newspaper.

This is no coincidence. It is not that most millionaires are in the habit of being frugal despite their wealth: it is that they are so wealthy because they are in the habit of living so frugally. The plentiful residual income goes into savings and investments that are left to grow for decades.

...

This surprising picture of America's wealthy presents class warriors with two problems. First, un-American as it might be to scapegoat and overtax the rich when they are perceived as Porsche-driving and Rolex-wearing, one can nonetheless imagine the envy that might inspire. But what is the future of class hatred in an America where, in fact, Porsche drivers and Rolex wearers have little net wealth, and the real rich are those who eat at the same restaurants and drive the same cars as most people, even when they can afford not to? It is difficult to imagine even the most skilled demagogue persuading Americans to resent the man who drives the same American-made car for years or the woman who faithfully cuts out every grocery coupon.

Second, devising economic policies that would target the wealthy would be still more difficult. Higher income taxes might reduce income inequality, but it would be a sideshow to the reality that inequalities of wealth are a result of some living below their means, not unequal incomes. Higher capital gains taxes, which can only be levied on realized gains, would have also have little effect on most millionaires, who are passive, buy-and-hold investors who see their stocks appreciate but rarely sell.

If liberals are determined to reduce economic inequality, they would have to take lessons from Dr. Stanley and encourage generally a culture of delayed gratification and a certain amount of self-denial - a self-reliant America of stockholders and coupon-clippers who marry and stay married. This is the profile of America's wealthy, and a serious effort to reduce inequality would mean getting more Americans to adopt this lifestyle. But of course, for many who see inequality as a curse, this cure would be worse than the disease.

In The Millionaire Mind, Stanley finds that those with a net worth of at least $1 million possess qualities

...diametrically opposed to today's earn-and-consume culture, including living below their means, allocating funds efficiently in ways that build wealth, ignoring conspicuous consumption, being proficient in targeting marketing opportunities, and choosing the "right" occupation. It's evident that anyone can accumulate wealth, if they are disciplined enough, determined to persevere, and have the merest of luck.

If I had only known.