There are some similarities in Fussell and Kerbos argument's about social stratification and class structure. While Kerbo does focus more on the financial and monetary loss or gain and the inequality it plays in society he does acknowledge that class status plays a part in social stratification as well. Whereas, Fussell contends that income/wealth alone don't define class status, it has to do with style, taste, awareness, knowledge, perceptiveness and prestige. Both agree that income inherited in relation to income being earned is far better because this usually reeks of "old money" which brings clout and status that the rest of Americans can't possible touch or come close too on the stratification scale. It's one of the protective devices that separates the rich from the poor. Behaviors and traditions are learned by each class from the beginning of birth and each class behaviors are different.
When comparing government benefits what seems like a larger distribution may go to the poor, it actually ends up being the first of many government programs that will be cut. Although the poor might have more medical benefits, the quality of care is lower. This only causes the poor to become poorer and it also assures them that they will remain in their class structure, which is below the poverty level. Many people remain in their social class and seem content because they realize that is how the system works and they accept it. What I thought was interesting is that both referred to what Fussell called the "awful class" whereas class plays a part of convenience. Meaning, that your class status also dictates whether or not you become a statistic in wartime or on the home front where safety issues become a concern to the working class on the job. .
Income and wealth has it advantages it can buy independence, power, investments, political clout, better healthcare, and more government benefits.