At what income level do you consider somebody "rich"?

I would say rich would be any individual making >$250,000/year. A fair tax rate should not exceed 25% (All in: Fed, State, FICA, Medicare, etc.)

Top 1% pay approx, 35% of federal personal income taxes;

Top 5% pay approx. 55%.

The progressive rates are penalty enough and discourage people from making more money. A 35% federal tax rate is absurd. Combine that with NYC and New York state taxes and you could have government be your 50% partner in all your earnings. People who advocate higher taxes seem to forget that the rich person receiving a paycheck earned their money. No one gave them anything and government does not have the right to take from them (at a 50% rate) that which is their personal property. That is taking away ones freedom to decide what to do with what they have earned. All Americans should be concerned about that issue.

Class envy is very unfortunate and all should be aware that it is the rich who pay the overwhelming share of personal income taxes. Look it up.

Politicians disgust me when they speak of tax policy and the reasonableness of the estate tax and continuously raising taxes on the rich, etc. If they squeeze too hard on the neck of the goose that lays the golden eggs, all will suffer.

I consider richness to be a measure of personal satisfaction, regardless of monetary wealth.

But in answer to the question, I'd say that if you have a net worth of $1 million after all debts and liabilities are factored in, and you have at least $100,000 a year in disposable income after all of your expenses are covered, you would be rich.

Less than that and you may be quite comfortable, but not rich.

Filthy rich is when you have enough money to live extravagantly without having to go to work unless you feel like it.

And wealth is when your money earns enough interest to let you live like you're filthy rich without ever touching the principal. Those are the folks who invest in media corporations in order to promote political candidates who'll pimp their investments and turn tax dollars into private account balances.

Young families pay NO INCOME TAX as you cite, they have child credits etc. so lets reiterate that please.

As to the question of when one is considered rich, my stockbroker uses the word "wealth" and told me that $500,000 liquid assets usually meets that criteria; that was several years back so in my mind if i had to give a number i;d say one is wealthy if they have $750,000 liquid [disposable/discretionary funds] that would not include real estate mortgaged or not.

You may consider material goods and money as a rich path. However there are real treasures in family, friends, and memories. I suppose monetary richness is considered as someone having more income or assets than the average.

Hi there, my parents are considered rich (upper middle class), and I know they pay a heavy amount of taxes, especially to the school system in the city they live in. They are now looking to downgrade their home and to get out of the city they live in so they can quit paying the high school system taxes since my sister and I are no longer in school there. =)

PS-they don't support me; I earn all my own money & pay my own taxes and i'm considered poor lol.

The "rich" should pay their share. I think a person who makes thousands of dollars a day/week is considered a wealthy person.

The "rich" are people like the people in hollywood, and can afford 3 cars or more, and a mansion for a home!

Over 100k individual income annually "might" get you rich status in USA but i prefer to refer to it as just making a decent living! As for wealthy billionaire status for sure!Only a fool would count on any federal government's enties explanations of statistics! LOL. They are famous for cooking the books!

to me, it depends on where u live. in my state, 100k is a pretty good living for an individual. in other places, the cost of living is so much higher, that salaries should be higher. but it's quite possible that a person making $100k in Jersey, will have less disposable income than a person making $80k in Ohio.

The rich are getting screwed in this country with taxes. I say, anyone who pays taxes > 20% is getting screwed (and is therefore rich)

US: Incomes of the ultra-rich quadrupled in eight years

By Jeremy Johnson

1 July 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The 400 top-earning US taxpayers nearly quadrupled their income over the past decade, according to a report released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) last week. The IRS report documents just how much the rich got richer in the decade of the 1990’s. It states that the adjusted gross income (AGI) of these 400 super-rich taxpayers went from an average of $46.8 million in 1992 to $174 million in 2000. Similarly, the minimum AGI required to be included in the elite group rose from $24.4 million to $86.8 million.

The nearly $70 billion in income reported in 2000 on these few tax returns constituted 1.09 percent of the total income reported by all 129 million taxpayers, or over 3,500 times the average. The percentage of income concentrated in the top 400 more than doubled from 0.52 percent in 1992.

While the IRS did not provide details on individual returns, one report indicated that several taxpayers listed incomes greater than $1 billion.

By contrast, the income of the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers increased only 17 percent over the eight years to an average of $27,000 in 2000.

As the incomes of the super-rich rocketed up, the percentage they paid in federal income tax dropped over the eight years from 26.4 percent to 22.3 percent. At the same time, average taxpayers saw their percentage rise from 13.1 percent to 15.4 percent.

These latest statistics confirm the extent to which the Democratic administration of President Clinton presided over a concentration of wealth at the top that went far beyond that of his Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. While passage of a small increase in taxes on the wealthy early in the Clinton years produced an initial increase in the top 400’s tax percentage, peaking at 29.9 percent in 1995, the reduction in the tax rate on capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent that Clinton signed into law in 1997—in the midst of the stock market boom—more than made up the difference.