really...you need money to start a business? I had no idea.
Guess there was no money pre 2001. wonder how they managed

It's pretty funny that this thread blew up to 300+ posts already of people arguing that a generalization covering the entire united states doesn't make sense if you isolate the geography to instead be a handful of wealthier cities. This just in - rural Mississippi is slightly different than Manhattan.

FWIW, if you're drawing a line, I think you could do a lot worse than 5 times median.

They didn't have a credit crisis to deal with? There was obviously a huge amount of venture capital available pre 1995, what 3-4billion? Awesome!

so its all about the venture capital then. So as long as we keep taxes cuts for people over 250k everything will work out fine?

Why not just increase everyones taxes making less than 250K by 10% and then give people making more than 250K an even bigger tax cut...more venture capital!!

To me rich means being able to:

Fly first class once a month

Stay in a suite instead of a room in four star hotels four times a year

Own a Mercedes (replace every three years) a small boat and a million dollar house

Have a maid and a nanny

Eat out at a four star restaurant most nights

Send your kids to any college

Pay for full time home health care for your elderly parents

Retire with ten million at age 60

So what income does that work out to for a thirty year old?

Depends on how many credit cards they have

Yeah, cutting off my legs won't halt me from trying to get around but it makes it harder. "Prevent" is a fun word I guess.

The $30,000 Millionaire

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2007-1...in-the-mist/1/

Sklansky's rich definition.

This is incorrect. The reason it is incorrect is because of the difference in capital gains rates and income rates.
If you are an investor you have a choice between investing in something that yields income or capital appreciation or both. The difference in the two tax rates can make some profitable, productive businesses generating income undesirable compared to investing in stocks for a year and making a lower return but saving on taxes.

So Zuckenberg won't try and create Facebook

The 2 store dry cleaner guy won't expand his local business to other markets

Mark Cuban won't invest in a new start-up or some other random business they he has the hots for?

because that was the argument being made...if we don't cut the taxes of people making 250K, then the economy will be majorly hurt and people won't have any interest in creating new businesses cuz then if they get super successful they'll have to pay 3% more in taxes on personal income over 250k.

of the 3 examples the multi-millionire is probably the only one who actually comes into play here

better to just work your way up and manage a local call center then risk that extra 3%.

What if instead of giving the rich a massive tax break of 3% we just give them a 1% tax cut?
Or 1.8% tax cut...or is that extra 1.2% the key part to everything?

Tyler Cowen says it better than I can

No-one is seriously arguing that taxes create 100% deadweight losses. Taxes cause distortions on the margin. Facebook might not have been on the margin, but a number of other businesses may have been.

The definition of 'rich', as far as I can tell, and good luck to them w/ that.

Perhaps a new term would be better and I propose 'Well-off' which I think more accurately describes what many itt are describing as 'rich'.

And here is a podcast featuring G.A. Cohen, the author of If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?

Yeah, I could have those things if we didn't save and borrowed a lot of money and prioritized material possessions over personal and financial security, i.e. if we lived beyond our means. That's kind of the whole point.

Bingo.

this is an excellent description of what I consider to be 'Rich'. The majority of people making $250k cannot afford this...unless they live a thrifty middle class life until the age of 55...then start with the flights/hotels/mercedes/4start restaurants most night...yada yada yada

If 250K is not rich then it certainly is wealthy. They shouldn't have much debt, they shouldn't have any financial troubles. They can live an Upper Middle Class life no problem.

Other celebs are famous because they have talent in athletics, music, business or acting.
I'm still gonna try to win the pot whether the rake is $4 or $6 so why worry about higher rake?
700k?

This is exactly what I've been saying.

I've had a bit of an epiphany that might explain the dialogue here. One of the "big ideas" of social change in the last 30 or so years has been the observed (or at least asserted) erosion of the middle class. Maybe people have changed their thinking along these lines so that they can only see people as being rich or poor, with no in between. If so, then they would lump all of the remaining middle class (especially the "upper middle class" like young urban professionals) into the "rich" category. Maybe people just don't have room for "middle class" in their world view anymore.

About 200 posts ago it was mentioned that 80% of people self-identify as middle class.

Right, but when they look at others (or just imagine what others live like at different income levels) do they every see anyone else as being middle class?

I guess this may come down to fly's view that people over a wide range of incomes will see themselves as "not rich" because of their lack of perspective. I think that this has to break down at some point though, I can't really see an executive with a net worth of $10M or more thinking that they're not rich.

cart before the horse IMO.

+1
Those who see themselves as "not rich" simply have high standards for what it is to be rich. They're well aware that they're earning x times the median income, and they know better than anybody else what lifestyle it affords them and what level of financial stress they're having. Poor people are the ones who tend to lack perspective and, for example, think of $250k as OMG INFINITE MONEYZ when we're talking about gross household income.

Rich has always been a big word to me. I can't think of someone as rich if they have an insignificant net worth and must get up in the morning to go work for their boss.

Surely it's possible to have a gross household income around $250k and feel rich, but it's not the norm.

lol at the implication that wealthy < rich. They're almost synonymous, but wealthy is the stronger word of the 2.

There's a long-term implication to the word wealthy. It's almost ridiculous to call a person wealthy based strictly on their income, especially when it's <$1M.