I noted the definition is individual, I gave mine, which is as valid as anyone's. The calculation on what is needed for retirement has to include age at retirement. Let's assume you are 65, you're life expectancy is 86 for a female and 83 for a male. So, you need to cover 20 years, and have a safety net in case. I didn't include SS in my own situation, but it's a nice "perk" indeed. I actually could live off SS with my wife's as well. It would be a simpler lifestyle.
Another definition of "rich" is you can do whatever you want without considering the cost (aside from bizarre things). I consider costs a lot when we travel. I imagine everyone here does as well.
And I'm not saying your definition is wrong. However, if we're having a discussion, and we're all using the same word while having different definitions, then we're not effectively communicating.
I.e. for OAM, it seems that "rich" is anyone with a comfortable enough income that they have time for leisure and don't have to grind their way to avoid abject poverty. I'd argue that someone who can devote spare time to an obscure passion, i.e. a college football board game, that may be only modestly profitable, would fall under his definition of "rich". But I don't think he calls himself rich.
On the opposite side, I've known many people that I'd consider rich. We're talking people that built up nice businesses, live in palatial estates inland or large oceanfront houses on the boardwalk in Newport Beach (or both in one case), live in luxury, have expensive wine collections, etc etc. But even with the houses I'm not sure they're at $50M net worth, much less $50M in semi-liquid assets.
My only point is that it seems for both of you, your definition is outside the mainstream. Which, again, is fine. I'm not saying that definition is wrong. But it makes it hard to communicate when the spectrum of "rich" is so wide between us, but we're all trying to use the same word.