Historically pale skin was prized because rich women didn't work in the fields, they stayed in doors out of the sun. Tans came into fashion with air travel. Only the wealthy could fly to say the Med for their holidays Also I suppose poor slum dwellers didn't get much sun. They only got rickets due to a subsequent lack of vitimum D.
That's what I was thinking. 5% is the upper limit of the fraction of his wealth that a rich person could safely spend each year anyway. So his income is no different than if he'd kept the money. The only thing he has lost is the ability to change his mind about where the principal goes when he dies.
That kind of salary still lets him build substantial personal wealth, so if he manages it wisely there will likely still be quite a large sum to pass to his heirs.
Right. I would place this under "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity," thus it is on-topic. That said I'm interested in some intellectual discussion on the article now that we have pretty much concluded that it is on-topic.
