do you have a link to the official criteria?
i've heard it merely considers present income. clearly that is flawed.
I see that rotorhead (response above) understands that politicians tax the rich to buy the votes of the "poor"
2007-10-18 08:00:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The whole argument is flawed. When ever a politician starts talking about the rich, middle class, poor, etc., rarely will they put an income on the classes. They might say only the top 10% bottom 5%, blah blah blah. They will say "families making more or less than...", which means if you are married w/out kids, stand by to take it in the shorts. What gets me is they want to top 5% to pay so the lower 40% does not. What BS. You can't tell me that 40% of the population is living at the poverty level. It is also insane that you can get back more than you pay in. Socialism, pure and simple. The more people they can label as "Poor", the more funds they can allot to give away, but they have to raise taxes on the greedy filty dispicable rich so they will "pay their fair share". If they happen to collect more than they need, great, more money to spend on other pet pork programs. But no matter how much they raise taxes, the Liberals always say it isn't enough and more is needed.
Having worked as a pawn broker for over 6 years in large cities in the south, I can tell you that the poor had better stereos, TVs, video games and jewelry than I did and I worked 6-7 days a week. They would come to me trying to cash their child subsistance checks to buy jewelry. I would refuse. Come tax time, they would piss every penny on more jewelry, movies, video games, TVs, car stereos, etc and within a few weeks be back pawning it as they had spent all their money. They are poor because they have zero financial responsibility. How is that my problem?
2007-10-18 14:50:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is very difficult to set a standard for poverty in all fifty states. There are a great many variables, depending on where one lives, such as cost of living, as in housing costs, food costs, and utility costs. the best that can be done is a national average based on income and family size. A fairly good indicator of poverty is the federal minimum wage. This is the bare necessity range for the average American.
2007-10-18 14:49:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by fangtaiyang 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
In America, poverty means having a 15 inch color TV instead of a 50 inch HD TV.
2007-10-18 14:39:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've visited a few countries that aren't quite as wealthy as the US...and their middle class strives to attain what politicians call the US poverty level: a stable living structure, clean running water to drink, electricity, phones, cable, television, and FOOD.
It's probably flawed.
2007-10-18 14:41:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope, the poverty line is based on a nationwide average.
2007-10-18 14:39:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋