Reader Mitch Paradise of Los Angeles found the headline misleading. "Obama isn't really proposing a 'tax increase for millionaires,' is he?," Paradise emailed. "One can become a 'millionaire' pretty much regardless of income, can't one? In this case, we're really talking about annual adjusted gross income, aren't we? So why be misleading in your headlines and subheadlines?"

Also, in a Sept. 20 editorial, "The 'Buffett rule,' and more," The Times described Obama's deficit-cutting proposal as including "a proposal to make millionaires pay at least as high a tax rate as working- and middle-class Americans." The term was used similarly in a Sept. 20 news article and in a Sept. 22 letter to the editor. A Sept. 19 article, headlined "Taxes, wars at core of deficit plan," used different language in defining the "Buffett rule": "No one earning more than $1 million a year should be taxed at a lower rate than middle-income households."

Senior copy desk chief Mark McGonigle responds:

I agree with the reader. In fact, after receiving Paradise's question, I sent a note to our copy editors reminding them of the correct use of "millionaire." In 2004, I wrote the following:

"Let's not use 'millionaires' as shorthand for people who make more than a million dollars a year. 'Millionaire' has to do with assets, not income. And in some cases, using the word leads to something that's downright wrong."

The dictionary definition of millionaire is "a person whose wealth comes to at least a million dollars, pounds, francs, euros, etc." The definition has nothing to say about income. (Fun fact: There's also a similar definition for "millionairess," I guess to distinguish the wealthy female from the wealthy male.)

In the case of the Sunday article, I think we should have said "wealthy," which also may have more to do with assets than income but seems less specific. Or, "Obama to propose tax increase on top incomes."