The phrase "a rich individual" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a person who possesses a significant amount of wealth.
Example: "The charity event was attended by a rich individual who generously donated to the cause."
Alternatives: "a wealthy person" or "a affluent individual."
Darkly handsome in an unconventional way, with a commanding presence and a rich individual voice, he worked on the stage and made numerous insignificant film appearances until becoming one of the great British movies stars of the Second World War.
This week, the legislature failed to meet the deadline for passing a budget.Opponents of the recall say this paralysis is yet more evidence of the damage a rich individual can do through ballot initiatives.
The patron of the aqueduct – a rich individual or the city of Nîmes itself – would have hired a large team of contractors and skilled labourers.
For instance, Sen (1976) proposed the condition saying that poverty increases when an even transfer is made from someone who is below the poverty line to a richer individual (below or above the line).
She says a suddenly rich individual like Duke should hire four managers and play one off against the other to get the best return.
Undeterred by the kind of volatile downdrafts that sent oil plunging 4.5percentt Wednesday, to settle at $104.48 a barrel, large funds and rich individual investors have sent a torrent of cash into this arcane market over the last year, toppling records for new money flowing in.
In a traditional Wall Street IPO, the bulk of shares will go to those who are prepared to spend the most – pension funds, insurance groups and a few rich individuals.
As a result, rich individuals have increased their wealth geometrically.
What does it matter if patronage is sought from a few rich individuals, corporations, and institutions or from the masses?
Money comes from grass-roots subscriptions, a few rich individuals and well-endowed advocacy groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature.
But Barbara D. Underwood, the acting solicitor general who argued for the Federal Election Commission, contended that the limits, enacted in 1974 and raised to account for inflation, were a safeguard against rich individuals using the parties as a "conduit to corrupt candidates".
