# $200K/year isn't rich. Why aren't we taxing corporations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2011, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110 "2011-09-12T23:36:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/161 "2011-09-14T18:40:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > **One problem with this analysis is that one’s income is often tied to where one lives.** The big salaries are in the big cities. In Toronto, $800K isn’t outrageous for housing, but you cannot effectively take your $200K salary and simply decide to live in a small town, because you have to live within communting distance of a place like Toronto to earn it. (bolding mine) This is not true. _Rarely_ is one’s income tied to where one lives. _Often_, most people make around $50k a year. Even in places like Manhattan, [median household income is $64,000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#Income). For most of the country, income hits a cap of less than 1/2 of $200k, regardless of where one lives. Yes, the big salaries are in the big cities, but most people don’t make those big salaries. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/162 "2011-09-14T18:42:31Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Sure. You wanna argue for raising taxes on the top 10% I’ll back you up on that. > This thread is about income tax. A figure may be arbitrary, but it’s very measurable. I don’t think that they can tax you based on your perceived social standing. There are really two arguments in this thread. The first is about the nature of taxation. On that we probably agree - taxation ought to be progressive, meaning tax increases ought to hit the upper percentiles more, percentage-wise. This is true regardless of the terms used to define those upper percentiles. The second is about who is “rich”. This is a term that, for political and emotive reasons, is I think being twisted out of its original meaning to support a taxation policy I happen to agree with. The fact I agree with the policy does not mean I agree with what I see as a misuse of the term. I’m with Orwell on this–language ought not to be manipulated this way, _even if I happen to agree with the people doing the manipulation_. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/163 "2011-09-14T18:46:32Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > (bolding mine) > > This is not true. _Rarely_ is one’s income tied to where one lives. _Often_, most people make around $50k a year. Even in places like Manhattan, [median household income is $64,000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City#Income). For most of the country, income hits a cap of less than 1/2 of $200k, regardless of where one lives. > > Yes, the big salaries are in the big cities, but most people don’t make those big salaries. Huh? You are agreeing with my point (“Yes, the big salaries are in the big cities …”) but your post reads like you are somehow disagreeing with it. My point was that you can’t get the 200K outside of the big city, not that everyone in the big city earns 200K. I never said the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Rickymouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/34f0e0/32.png) [@Rickymouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rickymouse)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/164 "2011-09-14T18:58:19Z")
Our economy is structured so that those with more income spend or waste more money than those with less income. More expensive apartments in better or higher class neighborhoods and of course the expensive new cars. The higher priced restaurants and more expensive entertainment. This keeps the buck rotating through our society and creates and supports many jobs. If these people quit their frivilous spending our economy collapses. This conditioning to train people is a part of capitalism that is taught somehow to us. I see much evidence and have seen documentories by economists stating how it works but am still confused how our society got so entwined in it that most don’t realize it’s happening. If we believe in the economy the economy thrives but if more than about ten percent of the people start questioning it’s validity the whole thing is in jeopardy. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/165 "2011-09-14T19:02:32Z")
> [@Agent\_Violet](#): > > while i appreciate your shitty attempt at being snarky, i did read the thread and still haven’t seen a single reason for overtaxing some people and not taxing others at all. Yes you have. The answer is “Because that’s where the money is.” This was stated already multiple times, so try re-reading through the thread and it will sink in maybe? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/166 "2011-09-14T19:14:08Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I guess this is an argument about what a small business is. From your link of 2007 data: > > 1-50 = 34.1% > 51 - 249 = 13.2% (derived) > 250+ = 52.7% > > I think that having close to half of all jobs at companies with less than 250 employees is a fair amount of jobs out there. I don’t know how you define small business (kind of link the debate on who is middle class going on elsewhere), but I don’t consider my company of around 200 employees to be “big business.” It’s sweet of you not to _think_ of your business as big, but for purposes of this discussion it’s big. Why is that, you ask. What makes it ‘big’ for purposes of this discussion? Remember our formula: profits = revenues - expenses. And let’s assume that taxes are some arbitrary percentage of profits, it doesn’t really matter what. If you’re self-employed, ‘profit’ may effectively be another name for your salary; it’s what you live off of. An increase in the tax rate on your profits may actually take your profit, i.e. your salary, from a level where your business is worth doing to a level where it makes more sense to find a ‘real’ job, i.e. working for someone else. In a real sense, though not in a technical, bookkeeping sense, the tax moves the business from profitable to unprofitable, because it’s no longer a very good use of your time and abilities. If you’ve got 200 employees, chances are your business is incorporated, and you pay yourself a salary so you can deduct that salary as an expense before taxes. The tax isn’t going to give you a reason to shut down the business, though you may be less than happy when it reduces the amount of dividends you can pay out to yourself over and above your salary. Your business is still profitable to you - it’s still the highest and best use of your time and abilities. It’s just a little bit less good than before, but you’re still well in the black by this measure. ‘Small’ for purposes of this discussion is small enough that you’re at risk of being in the first category, that the real bottom line and the bottom line for bookkeeping purposes are very different, and the former isn’t very far at all into the black. You don’t have to be a one-man show to be in this category, but by the time you’re anywhere near 50 employees, the two bottom lines have effectively converged: you’re going to pay yourself enough to make it worthwhile, unless that would put you in the red in the standard bookkeeping way. ---
**Author:** ![panman\_1960](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/919ad9/32.png) [@panman\_1960](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panman_1960)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/167 "2011-09-14T19:19:41Z")
The question was asked, "WHY do we want to tax the wealthy (Higher yearly income earners). To me it is because we can’t legislate the moral responsibility of corporations to the workers. I worked for a large corporation. For 5 years I tracked my yearly earnings and the earinigs of my CEO. Face value adjusted for inflation, I had a 3% increase over 5 years, while my CEO had upwards of 450%. I worked hard, had good results, good reviews, but like every other worker bee, had to justify my existance to get that 2.5-4% piece of the raise pool. CEO puts his pants on the same way the rest do, but can claim “We pay competitive wages and do not give COLAs.” when questioned about raises. Sure, tax the guys who works in the top hallways, and the board members who serve on each others networked boards that vote themselves higher pay. That’s why I’d like to see the top earners pay more. ymmv. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/168 "2011-09-14T19:19:45Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > Only in the same pedantic sense that mass does not define weight. And, of course, it’s an irrelevant distinction unless you can show that “rich” can only apply to non-income forms of wealth. I don’t see it as irrelevant. If I make $200k and live (in a single household) drive a single car and have a couple of kids who don’t go to prep schools somewhere, I don’t and wouldn’t see myself as rich. Luckily I don’t make $200k/Year but I have that much upward mobility that I may see that pretty soon. I wouldn’t define that person above as “rich”. Yes he is well off, doing fine, paying bills and maybe even putting some money away (retirement, kids college, kids cars whatever) Rich, to me, is someone making enough to be able to afford all of those things above without actually relying on a paycheck to pay a bill, car payment or college tuition. If someone has all their cash (net worth) tied up in assets then I’d consider them rich if they had assets exceeding say $2M. Why 2M, why it’s just some arbitrary number made up by me (ten years salary) similar to what I would expect life insurance to cover (in case of death for my family) When we start talking about how much money people make and the median incomes, it strikes me as disingenuous to have only 3 classifications. Poor, middle class, and rich But for the tax code, you’d have a hard time being able to distinguish even more than those we have. A progressive rate seems fine to me (kind of like what has been proposed) but to maximize the tax dollars that low end number has to fall (and will ultimately keep falling if we keep spending) ---
**Author:** ![Palo\_Verde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Palo\_Verde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palo_Verde)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/169 "2011-09-14T19:57:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Your anecdote appears to support my point - your sister and husband indeed cannot afford a house and a car (or at least, they don’t have them). They do not have extra-curricular activities for their kids. That they “have a pretty nice life” I do not doubt … but what does that have to do with what social class they are? Not all lower class people live miserably, and not all upper class people live well. > > All those houses, cars, and other material goods will not grant anyone a “nice life” and their lack will not prevent anyone from enjoying a “nice life” (though to be sure, having money is easier than not having money). > > My point is that if owning a car and a house is suddenly the indicia of the “rich”, we have effectively moved the definition of the term. What used to be solidly “middle class” is now being defined as “rich”. No, a middle class life, by definition, is one that can be lived by person with a middle income. If only wealthiest can afford it, then it ain’t middle class! ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/170 "2011-09-14T20:05:35Z")
> [@Palo\_Verde](#): > > No, a middle class life, by definition, is one that can be lived by person with a middle income. If only wealthiest can afford it, then it ain’t middle class! The term “middle class” doesn’t mean “average salary” and never has. It is perfectly possible to say things like “in a third world country, only a small minority of the population is middle class” or “in America today, the middle class is disappearing”. If your definition were true, these would be meaningless statements. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/171 "2011-09-14T20:06:15Z")
> [@Palo\_Verde](#): > > No, a middle class life, by definition, is one that can be lived by person with a middle income. If only wealthiest can afford it, then it ain’t middle class! Then why doesn’t the tax code change every year to re-define those terms? ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/172 "2011-09-14T20:08:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Why 3% rather than, say, the top 10%? Are the top 10% not better off than 90% of people out there? WHY AREN’T THEY ALL “RICH”? Is the sentence, “Wilt Chamberlain, the pro basketball player, was tall” a meaningful statement? If so, is it true? Saying that anyone over 7 feet in height is “tall” is not false or meaningless simply because “7” is an apparently arbitrary number. It does not mean we need a supposedly “objective” measurement such as “has to duck to enter Building X” for the term “tall” to have meaning. We could say that anyone over 6 feet in height is tall. This, too, has meaning. Is it true? Well, it’s less true than the statement about “7 feet in height” and more true than “anyone over 5 feet in height is tall”. Of course, this assumes we’re talking about human beings, and not redwood trees - or bonsai trees. The point I’m trying to make is that “rich” is not a binary value. It is an inherently relative term, just like “tall”. Sometimes a term fits in such a wide variety of contexts that it makes sense to treat it provisionally as a binary value; it is a useful fiction. Hence, “Bill Gates is rich” is true unless we’re talking about a very strange grouping, possibly including cartoon ducks. Therefore, I have no problem with saying “Bill Gates is rich”, even though it might be more technically correct to use the word “rich **er** ” and give a comparison group. On the flip side, I wouldn’t normally say that someone making $25,000 a year in modern America is rich. However, if someone were to say, “Compared to a large number of people in [some thirdworld country], someone making $25,000 in modern America is rich” I wouldn’t disagree. Since “rich” and “tall” are inherently relative terms, context is vital. In order for, say, the top 3% of people with the highest incomes in one of richest countries in the history of the world to be considered to _not_ be rich, you have to contort the context to a great degree. For example, you can compare them to the the top _two_ percent, or maybe the top 0.001 percent. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/173 "2011-09-14T20:09:59Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Then why doesn’t the tax code change every year to re-define those terms? AFAIK, the tax code does not, nor is in the business of defining vague categories such as “working class”, “middle class” or “rich fucking basterd”. ---
**Author:** ![Invisible\_Chimp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f05b48/32.png) [@Invisible\_Chimp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Invisible_Chimp)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/174 "2011-09-14T20:12:30Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Is it just the term ‘rich’ that has stupid emotional baggage for folks? If I called them the income-elite, would there be an argument about that? This, to me, is the crux of the argument about people defining rich. From the posters in this thread who make 200K+ to Howard Stern, no one wants to admit they are rich. Everybody who isn’t poor considers themselves middle class. Furthermore, I think the term income-elite beats job creators when it comes to effective euphemisms. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/175 "2011-09-14T20:16:52Z")
How can you be rich except in comparison to others? If “rich” is objectively something beyond 250k a year, then statistically nobody in the world has ever been rich. The number of people who have made that much on this planet is so minute that it’s not worth counting them. It’d only be in the last few decades in a tiny corner of the world that a miniature sprinkling of people have become “rich.” Other than that, there’d be a few rich oil barons and industrial tycoons and maybe some kings back in the day and that’s pretty much it. It’s just an absurd idea. The “rich” are always the upper echelons of whatever society they are in. As for owning a home… The spacious single-family home with a yard and all that is an innovation that was made possible by the creation of suburbs. They are not something you “lose” by going in to the city, but something you “gain” by going in to the suburbs. Pretty much nobody has ever had the luxury of living in a freestanding home in a dense part of a big city. Even the British royal family lives in apartments in Buckingham palace. It’s just not a thing anyone can expect, rich or not. A handful of people have really nice apartments in Manhattan, but next to nobody is living a suburban lifestyle in Manhattan. Luckily for everyone, large dense cities are surrounded by these nice things called “suburbs.” That’s where people live if they want a big house. Someone making $200,00k in San Francisco, for instance, can afford a new house in the Sunset- and that’s even in city limits. Yeah, you have to commute. Guess what? People commute! Not commuting is a huge luxury, and requires some sacrifices for pretty much everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/176 "2011-09-14T20:17:35Z")
> [@Invisible\_Chimp](#): > > This, to me, is the crux of the argument about people defining rich. From the posters in this thread who make 200K+ to Howard Stern, no one wants to admit they are rich. Everybody who isn’t poor considers themselves middle class. Furthermore, I think the term income-elite beats job creators when it comes to effective euphemisms. Reminds me of a French joke. In France, Northerners are universally agreed to be snooty bastards without a sense of humour and who just don’t know how to enjoy themselves because they live in such a frigid, miserable place. You ask a Marsellais where the North begins, he’ll confidently tell you “Lyon”. Ask a Lyonnais, he’ll say the North begins in the Massif Central or thereabouts. Ask someone from Tours, he’ll say “Paris”. Ask a Parisian where the North begins, he’ll say Lilles. Ask a Lillois where the North begins, he’ll say the North is not so bad…from what he’s heard 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/177 "2011-09-14T20:23:14Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > AFAIK, the tax code does not, nor is in the business of defining vague categories such as “working class”, “middle class” or “rich fucking basterd”. Define is such a loose term, I would put forth that they do indeed put caps on “the rich” and give other benefits on those they deem “poor” It might not merit Webster but it is there. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/178 "2011-09-14T20:24:22Z")
I think the semantic debate over ‘rich’ is pretty silly. My definition involves (a) living better than \> 95% of Americans, while (b) not having to work. So only a very small slice of the population, well under 1% I’m sure, is rich by my definition. But we’re talking about taxation here. Saying that the most affluent 4% of the population isn’t rich enough to afford a higher marginal tax rate _on just the portion of their income that puts them into that lofty stratum_ is pretty silly. If you can’t tax the top 4% of your population at a somewhat higher rate, then who _can_ you raise taxes on? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/179 "2011-09-14T20:30:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I think the semantic debate over ‘rich’ is pretty silly. My definition involves (a) living better than \> 95% of Americans, while (b) not having to work. So only a very small slice of the population, well under 1% I’m sure, is rich by my definition. > > But we’re talking about taxation here. Saying that the most affluent 4% of the population isn’t rich enough to afford a higher marginal tax rate _on just the portion of their income that puts them into that lofty stratum_ is pretty silly. If you can’t tax the top 4% of your population at a somewhat higher rate, then who _can_ you raise taxes on? That’s the heart of the matter, people object to having “their” taxes raised and if you do it to a large sub set of the population you won’t be re-elected. The tax code, in my estimation, squeezes the middle class by the biggest margin. As has been stated here previously, the “rich” get away with paying less and the poor don’t pay much at all. To get the most money in you need to grow the economy as a whole (while keeping the taxes relatively safe) Safe being some obscure number that people feel ok paying (for what they view the government needing to do) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110/180 "2011-09-14T20:30:46Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > Is the sentence, “Wilt Chamberlain, the pro basketball player, was tall” a meaningful statement? If so, is it true? > > Saying that anyone over 7 feet in height is “tall” is not false or meaningless simply because “7” is an apparently arbitrary number. It does not mean we need a supposedly “objective” measurement such as “has to duck to enter Building X” for the term “tall” to have meaning. > > We could say that anyone over 6 feet in height is tall. This, too, has meaning. Is it true? Well, it’s less true than the statement about “7 feet in height” and more true than “anyone over 5 feet in height is tall”. Of course, this assumes we’re talking about human beings, and not redwood trees - or bonsai trees. > > The point I’m trying to make is that “rich” is not a binary value. It is an inherently relative term, just like “tall”. Sometimes a term fits in such a wide variety of contexts that it makes sense to treat it provisionally as a binary value; it is a useful fiction. Hence, “Bill Gates is rich” is true unless we’re talking about a very strange grouping, possibly including cartoon ducks. Therefore, I have no problem with saying “Bill Gates is rich”, even though it might be more technically correct to use the word “rich **er** ” and give a comparison group. > > On the flip side, I wouldn’t normally say that someone making $25,000 a year in modern America is rich. However, if someone were to say, “Compared to a large number of people in [some thirdworld country], someone making $25,000 in modern America is rich” I wouldn’t disagree. > > Since “rich” and “tall” are inherently relative terms, context is vital. In order for, say, the top 3% of people with the highest incomes in one of richest countries in the history of the world to be considered to _not_ be rich, you have to contort the context to a great degree. For example, you can compare them to the the top _two_ percent, or maybe the top 0.001 percent. You are conflating two uses of the word “rich”. One is as a _comparative term_ - clearly, most Americans are “richer” than most third worlders just as a six-footer is “taller” than the world average. But that’s not how the term is being used here. It is being used as a group identifier. There already exists a perfectly good sociological definition for this group: those who “earn” much or all of their pay from such things as investments and money-management, contrasting with those who earn their pay from, well, pay. With of course some notable exceptions. This meaning is better than the alternatives proposed exactly because it isn’t dependant on totally arbitrary cut-off points. Being part of the group known as “the rich” isn’t merely being on an income continuum, like being tall. The rich are qualitatively different from middle-class income-earners, because they are typically _not_ simply income-earners–they contrast with people in the upper-middle class, because they tend to not earn their bread by dint of their personal labour. Their concerns are, therefore, going to be quite different. Wilt Chamberlin is taller than I, but he’s not really _qualitatively_ different. Think of it the other way - saying that “everyone under 4’ 10” is a dwarf" isn’t really a useful definition, because being a dwarf is a medical condition, not simply a height; though it is true that dwarves tend to be under 4’10". [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/200k-year-isnt-rich-why-arent-we-taxing-corporations/596110.md?page=10)