Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The real complaint, as I see it, is "billionaires" not needing to pay taxes because they can readily avoid having any income.  (They usually have some of course, but often it's not of consequence, or receives the lower capital gains rate.)

This isn't my complaint exactly, but I think of "the rich" as being someone with over $100 million.

I thought we set the number at $5 Million a while back.

I'd be VERY comfortable with that number with my cost of living

I thought we set the number at $5 Million a while back.

That's like mid-tier ACC starting QB rich

To me, "rich" looks like this:
[img width=383.963 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/D6F2U3a.jpeg[/img]
And this:

And that is a lot more like this:

I think of "the rich" as being someone with over $100 million.

than this:

I thought we set the number at $5 Million a while back.

I think that the $5M figure was the "able to retire at any age" figure.  Ie, a 20 year old with $5M doesn't ever have to work.  They can live comfortably on that.  However, that 20 year old cannot sustain a Robin Leech / Richie Rich / Scrooge McDuck Jet-set lifestyle for life on $5M.  

And I think that is what @Cincydawg is getting at with his $100M figure.  I think of that as the Robin Leech / Richie Rich / Scrooge McDuck figure.  That is a quantity of money that gives one the ability to spend lavishly and frivolously and sustain it more-or-less indefinitely.  

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes? | AIER

The money line from the article:

Despite evidence to the contrary, there are still frequent cries that the rich are not paying their fair share in taxes. What constitutes a “fair share” is often incredibly vague, but almost always means “more than what the people wealthier than I am are currently paying in income taxes.

This is a point that needs to be made when the Bernie Sanders of the world spount their usual nonsense.

And that is a lot more like this:than this:

I think that the $5M figure was the "able to retire at any age" figure.  Ie, a 20 year old with $5M doesn't ever have to work.  They can live comfortably on that.  However, that 20 year old cannot sustain a Robin Leech / Richie Rich / Scrooge McDuck Jet-set lifestyle for life on $5M. 

And I think that is what @Cincydawg is getting at with his $100M figure.  I think of that as the Robin Leech / Richie Rich / Scrooge McDuck figure.  That is a quantity of money that gives one the ability to spend lavishly and frivolously and sustain it more-or-less indefinitely. 

I suppose it's subjective, but I tend to think of "rich" in terms of "don't have to work if you don't want to."  I don't think of it in terms of lifestyle.  I could keep my current lifestyle and never have to work with a couple million dollars.  Famous actors or musicians, etc. would need a lot more than that to keep their current lifestyles without ever working again.  But when your net worth exceeds your need for currency, to me, that's "rich."  

Granted, there's some part of me that thinks anyone who could live my lifestyle and never have to work again is "rich," regardless of the fact they might have to first sell their Beverly Hills mansion and move somewhere with lower taxes and into a middle-class home.  They could live a solid middle-class lifestyle while never working again.  Just not their current one.