This is just a silly strawman.

Of course there is a class difference between people at retirement age:

- Has enough wealth to pay for daily life with interest/dividends. Nearly all wealth sill be left to family+friends upon death. (Upper class)

- Has enough wealth to retire, drawing upon this wealth to survive. Must work late into life in order to leave a significant inheritance. (Middle class)

- Not enough wealth to survive without working or leave significant inheritance. Must rely on friends, family, or the state when unable to work in old age. (Lower class)

This entire thread is an example of why not to use frequently-misunderstood terms like "upper class". In most contexts "upper class" refers to social class like whether you come from aristocracy or multi-generational privilege, not necessarily economic status or wealth. The set of people who are A: upper class or B: wealthy overlap but are disjoint. There are upper class people who are not wealthy and there are wealthy people who are not upper class.

Is “yes” an unreasonable answer? They’re certainly not part of the stereotype, but neither is an IC tech worker, and I’d expect a retired person living off their investments would be pretty aligned with blue bloods on political and economic issues. Certainly they’d be opposed to any policy that’ll tank the value of their portfolio.

I think you'd want to adjust for age, source of wealth, and income level to have a reasonable definition.

Are they in their 30s with inherited wealth that allows them to spend like someone with a top 1% incone?