Leftys, could you plese define "the rich" for me?

Question

I hear the constant drumbeat that "the rich" need to pay more, but "the rich" is never defined. I like specifics. Could you define it for me?

techx, no not good enough. I'm looking for specific dollar amounts.

willis, could you then define "the poor" for me?

Answer 1

I'll define it for them...."the rich" are those in any OTHER tax bracket than the bottom bracket!

Answer 2

Actually the income tax needs to be abolished immediately, and replaced with the fair tax. Then there would no longer be any inequity. The rich would be paying more, because the fair tax is a consumption tax, and the rich are naturally going to be buying more stuff, and more expensive stuff. The poor and the working poor and even the middle class would have the option of buying second hand things, and therefore not having to pay the tax at all, unless they choose to buy some things brand new! Of course the rich will always complain about having to pay any taxes, because they think that they matter more than any of the rest of us!

So, I guess I would define rich as anyone who makes over $500,000 per year *sm*

Answer 3

You want a specific number for rich and poor but it really doesn't matter. Like it or not it was decided generations ago that the U.S. would have progressive taxation and not flat income tax. That's just the way it is. Poor may be "poorer" and rich may be "richer" and when politician talk about the "rich" they are speaking about a trend. If Malcom Forbes had been elected president then things might be different and you could be comfortable knowing who is rich and who is poor but it didn't happen.

Answer 4

Income of over $500,000 per year. Total income including tax free trusts. Any Republican who makes less than this just thinks he is a Republican.

Tax cuts enable the rich to pay more taxes because they make more; the poor pay less taxes because they make less.
Tax cuts on the rich increase income inequality, by giving the rich more money to make money. Although their individual tax bills fall, the number of rich people grow, and as a group they pay a larger share of all taxes paid. Unfortunately, this expanding group of newly rich people does not expand beyond the richest 1 percent -- which is too few to benefit most Americans. Furthermore, their increased share of the national income represents a decrease for the poor. In relative terms, the poor pay less taxes because they make less income. Only supply-siders would spin this as a success story for the poor.

Answer 5

The Rich = People who have jobs.

Answer 6

I'm not a lefty but, in my state it's anyone who makes more than $17,000 a year (No joke). This means if you make $17,000 or more you pay the same % income tax as someone who makes $1,000,000 per year. I think the current rate is about 35% per pay period. My state is also very, very blue. Scary.

Answer 7

Income including from investments of $500,000 or more. Net worth of $2,500,000 or more.

If this level still truly messes up the poor little family farmer regarding inheritance taxes, then adjust the level.

You righties try to sell the middle class on tax cuts for the rich by throwing us a bone - remember that $300 per person that bush and co gave us as a reward for letting him be president? You say we have to give tax breaks to the rich because we too could be rich someday -- but according to a study provided by a politically diverse group of think tanks, relying on census figures, men in their thirties in 2004 are making 12 % less than men in their thirties in 1974, adjusted for inflation. So much for horatio alger...

Answer 8

I'm speculating they mean anyone that is not poor. Therefore, they include the middle class in their definition.

While the rich remain rich in the face of oppressive tax policy, the middle class suffer and the poor profit.

Answer 9

I'm as far left as it gets in this country. I'd say 25 million in liquid assets would qualify, although to have any influence or power, you probably need about 100 million. To buy your "slow" son a presidency, or to own a major network to promote your agenda 24/7, you would probably need 2-3 billion, which fortunately for you, daddy bush and Rupert Murdoch are there.

Answer 10

According to Dictionary.com the definition would be: "having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds."

I would add that perhaps it would define someone that has far more than he or she will ever need.

In America, these days, it would pertain to anybody that makes $100,000.00 a year.

.