If you actually read the article, the inference is rather straightforward as it relates to the tax cuts. Keep trying.
The objective definition of the "rich" comes before any govt taxes and therefore could not possibly have any relation to the tax cuts. You are misleading.
Have you provided a straight answer to my question? Apparently you did not. Without that no productive discussion is possible.
I consider "the rich" as debt free people that have liquid assets. If you've taken loans out to pay for things that depreciate in value, you're not "rich."
No listing of liquid assets on tax returns. That's why I want to know how people who claim Trump's tax cut benefited only the rich actually define the "rich".
Spoon feeding is not my thing. Read the article. See how the distribution of Trump's tax cuts favor the wealthiest, and most notably the top quintile. Then connect the dots. Try it. It's fun for the whole family.
So just because he has no debt, someone with a checking account and living in a studio apartment can qualify as "rich" by your standard?