On the dictionary com. site, the adjective well-off is defined as "having sufficient money for a comfortable living; well-to-do".
At the same time, the adjective well-to-do is defined there as "prosperous; rich" (without mentioning well-off). As for the synonyms of each (1, 2) of the two, although they are almost the same, but there's a slight difference in their relevance for the one or the other.
Does this mean that anything/anyone which/who is well-off is also well-to-do, but not vice versa? Is there a fine difference between the two in usage?
Could there be a situation when the choice was to be made in favor of the one and not of the other?
Best Answer
I've been looking through dictionaries trying to corroborate my personal (UK-based) understanding of these terms.
Both certainly imply a degree of prosperity, but neither I think imply that person is very rich; say millionaires not billionaires.
I would agree with FumbleFingers that both are somewhat colloquial, and that well-to-do is rather dated; the biography of P.L.Travers (the author of Mary Poppins) describes her remembering her father as well-to-do.
I have always though of well-off as describing the financial status of a person. The Free Dictionary says moderately rich.
On the other hand I have thought of well-to-do being as much concerned with the outward behaviour arising from that wealth. Such a person not only has money but uses it to buy possessions, often those that increase their social standing.
The Collins dictionary gives this example:
Note that the matron (woman) herself is described as well-to-do, and we immediately think of someone very well dressed.
This distinction is not clear in the dictionaries I have consulted, but I do think is implicit in the actual terms themselves. It would not, in my opinion, give the same impression to say