Sorry, I can’t pin-it-down to a single vs. ‘accumulated wealth’.
For all the fun one might make of the ‘millennials’, Gen A-Z, etc., it’s not hard to see “’Old’ people voted for, the continuation/expansion of...XYZ = younger paying more and more for those benefits = less $$ in pocket = ....”.
And, no, the GOP/RNC have done NOTHING but pay lip service. Bush was vilified for his 2% plan; and the party quickly went back into its shell instead of fight, let alone talk about WHY it should be so (cuz you and I know, if they even brought up the IDEA of the Constitution, that genie might never be back in the bottle again).
I’m all for the wealthy, would love to be one of ‘em someday myself. But, if the party of ‘smaller govt’ (haven’t seen it yet except for voices from 3rd party), it’s not hard to sell the adverse to being Peter in ‘rob Peter to pay for Paul’
I’m between the two groups, and get it from both sides; my retirement age has been pushed up to 67, though (and I don’t doubt that if I saved in a 401K it would be used to lower my SS payments).