[MoD]

Originally Posted by bjl584

It's hard to define rich. It's been tried in many threads on this forum. It's more of a state of mind than an actual defineable number. More often than not, the term "rich" is used by politicians as a political tool. "Tax the rich", and etc. are campaign slogans that are used to exhaustion. But, what really is rich? Beyond that defenition, should the "rich" be taxed more? Some say yes, because they earn more. Some say no, because in a sense achievement and success is being punished by the government. Also, the "rich" are often the ones that own businesses and create jobs. The easiest way to cut expenses as a short term solution is to cut payroll. Higher taxes often means less jobs being created. So, whether or not I agree with it, I would argue that Obama trying to put a number ($250K or more per year) is a complete political move and not a well thought out economic move. It sounds more like class envy than it does sound economic policy to me. IMO.

Right... I just meant that whatever the minimum amount is to be rich (since that is not well defined) is based on net worth and not income.