> But all that talk about the richest 5% living the life of riches is just not accurate.
It's relative. You seem to define rich as basically being able to spend whatever you want and not have to worry about money. As another commentor has stated, being able to own a home in an area like the SF bay area is rich. It is a very desirable area, with good climate, and jobs.
The cute thing with this argument is the idea that your hardships are similar to the bottom 5% somehow. If you're not happy with your income, what should the people making less than you be?
Many people living in the SF bay area for example technically belong to the richest 3-5%... But cannot even afford a nice house here.
And with "nice" I do not mean a pool, 10 rooms. movie room, etc, but just enough rooms for the kids and in a neighborhood with good schools.
Now I have a very liberal viewpoint, and above categorization mostly fits me. Still I personally do not mind to be taxed a bit higher.
But all that talk about the richest 5% living the life of riches is just not accurate.