It is the money (income, net worth, whatever) above which some try to define "wealthy".

A person who has a net worth of over a million dollars simply because they bought a ticky tacky little house 45 years ago and have lived in it - frugally - ever since, is not "the wealthy".

An ordinary doctor working for a group practice and paying out the ass for insurance and netting a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in income is not "the wealthy".

Jack Welch, retired GE CEO is "The Wealthy".

John Thain, recently de-employed office decorator and former Merril (or whatever) CEO is, so far, "The Wealthy".

All those people who arrived in limos in Davos this past week are "THE WEALTHY".

The bottom end of "the wealthy", it seems to me, are the low end rich who are the camp followers, court jesters, and hangers on to the truly wealthy. Chris Matthews would be in this group.

Our outrage hasn't kept pace with inflation. "Millionaire" was an aspirational term in the 1920s. It should no longer be such. There are millionaires right here on DU who post frequently. I promise you they don't think of themselves as "rich".

We need to update the definition of "rich" to more accurately describe today's version of yesterday's Daddy Warbucks Millionaire.

It is not in the best interest of "The Rich" to have that definition inflated to match reality. Doing so would shine a spotlight on themselves. So they keep alive the myth that a mere millionaire is somehow RICH. That directs your (our) outrage at the "not actually rich". Which would be at a level several orders of magnitude too low.

It is easiest to be rich quietly. In the shadows. Behind gates and walls and heavily tinted ballistic glass.

If you can walk up and ring a person's doorbell to call them out to punch them in the nose because they're rich ...... they're not rich.