Get Ready for the Richcession

Economic downturns are usually horrible for poor people, bad for the middle class and an inconvenience for the rich. But if the economy enters a recession in 2023, or even if it manages to narrowly evade one, it might be the well-heeled who take a bigger hit than usual.

Call it the richcession.

Other than a small number of ascetics, nobody likes being poor. Doing without, living with so little savings that setbacks such as illness or job loss can be debilitating, is an ever-present source of stress. But for many poorer people, the years since the Covid crisis struck have been a bit easier financially than the years that preceded it. Several rounds of government relief helped them weather the early stages of the pandemic, and now a tight job market is providing them with wage gains that are reducing inflation’s bite. Federal Reserve figures show that the net worth of households in the bottom fifth by income was 42% higher in the third quarter than at the end of 2019, and up 17% from the end of 2021.A wage tracker developed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta shows that the 12-month moving average of annualised monthly wage growth for workers in the bottom quartile by income was 7.4% as of November.

With the important caveat that they were starting off from much higher bases, percentage gains for the rich have been more muted. Household net worth for the top fifth was 22% higher in the third quarter than before the pandemic, and was down 7.1% from the end of 2021—a consequence of the falling stock market. Paychecks haven’t risen as much, either, with the Atlanta Fed measure showing average annualized monthly wage growth for workers in the top quartile was 4.8%.

Recent layoffs have also inordinately affected higher-income workers. Many of the tech companies that have made headlines with layoff announcements pay extremely well. Securities filings show that the median worker at Facebook parent Meta Platforms made $295,785 in 2021, for example, while the median worker at Twitter made $232,626. And layoffs at those places where the typical worker is less well paid, such as Amazon.com, have largely been aimed at white-collar workers.

The consolation for higher-income workers who are laid off is that it should be relatively easier for them to find new work than it is for poorer people who lose their jobs. That is because the job skills of the more highly educated are generally more transferable than the skills of other workers. But they will still be in for a period of belt tightening, and they might not get paid quite so well at their new jobs as they were at their old ones.

Meanwhile, even though big-company layoffs have been making headlines, so far they haven’t made much of a dent in overall employment statistics. This is in part because industries that aren’t as well-represented in the stock market, and that typically employ more lower- and middle-income workers, are still straining to hire workers. In November the leisure and hospitality sector was 980,000 jobs short of its February 2020 employment level. Employment in healthcare and social assistance only recovered to its prepandemic levels in September. This is a job category that, in part because of the needs of an ageing population, grew even when overall U.S. unemployment shot higher after the 2008 financial crisis. To return to its growth trend over the decade preceding the pandemic, it would need to add about 1.1 million jobs.

That need for workers—especially as more Americans engage in services such as dining out—is part of why even among those economists expecting a recession in the coming year, many don’t think the job market will take a severe hit. This makes poorer Americans better positioned than usual to handle a weak economy. Not only are their finances in relatively good condition, they might be less likely to experience severe job losses.

Heading into the new year, businesses that cater to the well-off might be in for disappointment, while those that favour the hoi polloi over the hoity-toity might do better. And if there is a recession, the economy could be on much more equal footing as it begins to recover than is usually the case.

For many Australians, the 2026 Federal Budget initially felt like a direct challenge to the way wealth is created, held and transferred between generations.

The headlines were immediate: changes to capital gains tax, reforms to discretionary trusts, restrictions on negative gearing and increased scrutiny of investment structures. Unsurprisingly, affluent families, business owners and investors began asking the same question:

Is the way we hold our wealth still fit for purpose?

In recent days, the government has announced several significant amendments following industry consultation and public feedback, including exempting testamentary trusts from the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax and expanding capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.

The backdown is welcome. But it also highlights something much bigger.

This Budget has accelerated a conversation that many Australian families have been postponing for years.

The conversation is not really about tax. It is about wealth stewardship.

For decades, Australians have built wealth through businesses, property, investments and careful long-term planning. Yet many families have not revisited the legal structures surrounding those assets in years, sometimes decades.

We often see clients who have spent years building significant wealth, only to discover their legal arrangements no longer reflect their current circumstances.

Their children are now adults. They may own multiple properties.

They may have sold a business, entered a second marriage, become grandparents or accumulated digital assets that did not exist when their original estate plans were prepared.

The trust that distributes income may need to be reconsidered. The bucket company may no longer be so attractive.

The Budget has simply exposed a reality that already existed: wealth structures cannot remain static while life continues to evolve.

Importantly, trusts themselves are not the issue.

Trusts are legitimate planning tools that provide flexibility, protection and continuity. When used appropriately, they allow families to adapt to changing circumstances over time.

And neither is tax the issue, really. Getting the fundamentals right is more important for long-term, sustainable wealth than a few favourable tax treatments around the edges.

The real issue is complacency.

Too often, families create structures and assume the job is done. It isn’t.

Estate planning is no longer a document you sign once and file away in a drawer. It is an ongoing process that should evolve alongside your life.

We are also seeing a broader shift in how Australians define wealth itself. It is no longer just the family home and an investment portfolio.

Modern wealth includes businesses, digital assets, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, frequent flyer points and increasingly complex family arrangements.

At the same time, Australians are living longer than ever before, meaning wealth may need to support multiple generations simultaneously. This creates new responsibilities and new risks.

How do you help your children enter the property market without exposing family wealth to relationship breakdowns?

How do you structure wealth so that it remains a source of opportunity rather than future conflict?

These are the questions families should be asking now.

The recent debate surrounding testamentary trusts also serves as an important reminder that policy decisions can have unintended consequences for vulnerable Australians. It is encouraging that the government has listened to feedback and clarified its position.

But the lesson remains: the wealth landscape is changing.

Increasingly, governments, regulators and tax authorities are paying closer attention to how wealth is held and transferred. That means families cannot afford to adopt a “set-and-forget” approach to their structures.

The families who will be best placed for the future are not necessarily those with the greatest wealth.

They are the families with the greatest clarity. Clarity around ownership, succession and governance. And clarity around how wealth will transition from one generation to the next.

Ultimately, preserving wealth is not about avoiding change.

It is about preparing for it.

Because the greatest risk is not change itself.

It is losing the ability to respond to it.

Anthony Hunt is Co-Founder of Wealth Lawyers and former COO of Westpac Private Bank. He advises business owners, investors and affluent Australian families on wealth protection, succession planning and intergenerational wealth transfer

Get Ready for the Richcession

Well-off Americans could get hurt more than usual in the next downturn

The Federal Budget may have softened some of its proposed tax reforms, but it has exposed a bigger issue: too many families are relying on wealth structures that no longer reflect the realities of modern life.