I put a lot of thought into this, and $10 million isn't rich. Not rich enough. The other day I said that everyone should be able to make a living working part time and that it's possible by raising wages, capping rent and taxing the ultra-rich. I still believe this to be true, but the question was raised - "how do you define ultra-rich?" This is a fair question, and it's one I put some thought into.
My gut reaction was, "If you've never made secret payments to a Congressman to protect your corporate interests, then you're not rich enough." I still believe this to be true, although I realize the actual answer is more nuanced.
When defining ultra-rich, I find it useful to start with what I DON'T define as ultra-rich. Here are a few examples of people who I DON'T consider ultra-rich even though they may have made more than $10 million last year.
-An athlete, artist or entertainer who gets a big contract
-Independent salesman who makes $10 million in commissions
-Entrepreneur who gets his first successful business after failing a dozen times
What is the common theme between these people? They made their money on their own. They didn't have dozens or hundreds or thousands of people working for them. When I talk about ultra-rich people, I'm talking about people who are building fortunes on the backs of dozens or hundreds or thousands of people - and not paying them shit. Those are the scalps I want - the billionaires whose workers can barely pay rent. I don't know any of these people and they don't read my fucking blog - so it's not you. I still think it's a good idea to tax rich people, but you're not rich so don't worry about it.
What's it like to be rich? I don't know. I'll tell you when I make my first $100 million.