Pretty easily really. All you need to do is own & live in real estate
in a place where property values have gone thru the roof. Which is why
people asking you to define your terms aren't (necessarily) just
trolling. I can think of a lot of people who'd consider *you* rich, and
you are - relative to them. How many street people could you support if
you didn't have your new boat, hey? Why aren't you feeding the poor
instead of wasting money you *clearly* don't need for survival on toys?

If as you say anyone earning more than $200K pa is rich, how much tax
should they pay:

a) on their income from $0 to $200K?

b) on their income over $200K?

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
It's got to be both in some respects. How can one have wealth and not derive
income from it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 08:35:19 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

If the top 5% have 95% of the wealth, then they should absolutely
shoulder 95%
of the tax load.

Ah, so you'd like a tax system based on wealth rather than income, eh.

I'm not as simplistic as you when it comes to complex issues. I don't see
everything as if it's a cowboy movie, as you and Bushco do.

Does that mean you do not think tax rate should be based on wealth rather
than income?