1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

New definition of "POOR"......

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by bigdogtx, Nov 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bigdogtx

    bigdogtx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    10,650
    Guess there will always be a large amount of poor the way the new definition works......

    Looks like the American dream is no longer.......
     
  2. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,772
    New definition of

    Ask John Galt. He seems to think $8.30 per hour from Walmart makes a family of four Middleclass.......
     
  3. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    New definition of

    Don't be disingenious 410, I said no such thing. Stop whining and start your own company and show Wal-Mart how to do it since you are the "living wage" expert.
     
  4. BT-100dc

    BT-100dc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,487
    New definition of

    You know what's amazing, my father grew up during the Great Depression in Hazard, KY; the people there didn't realize they were poor until Pres. Kennedy visited there in the early 60's and the government told them that they were poor. As the comedian recently said, "By the world's standards, we have the fattest poorest people in the world.". BT100dc
     
  5. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,146
    New definition of

    Top 1% pay 40% of the total taxes. Top 10% pay 70%. Top 20% pay 90%.

    The "rich" have to pay their fair share.

    Class warfare
     
  6. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,241
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    New definition of

    If the rich gave everything they had it still wouldn't be enough

    The country is going broke at break neck speed
     
  7. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,772
    New definition of

    John Galt: I guess I'm in the top 10% that pay 70% of the taxes. I also started, built, and sold to retire, three businesses, which I sold to the employees. I paid for performance. Both short term and long term. Fortunately, I never had to compete with Walmart or their likes. But, then I suppose you pay your employees competitive wages with Walmart to keep the best people------right?
     
  8. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    New definition of

    Sorry Mrs. Keet

    johngalt_2011_120643.jpg
     
  9. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,728
    New definition of

    Click it!
     
  10. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,772
    New definition of

    JG: Is that all you can come up with? I am disappointed, I thought you were more clever than that chump picture.
     
  11. jimsw

    jimsw Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    198
    New definition of

    Don't worry the idiot in the White House has the answer. Raise taxes on families with income over $250,000 and single taxpayers over $200,000 and the new revenue will fund the government for 8 days! Great idea. If it weren't so serious it would be funny.
     
  12. Joe Potosky

    Joe Potosky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,487
    New definition of

    ‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it

    The federal government now considers a family of four in New York City to be poor if its pre-tax income is below $37,900.Even with full medical coverage.

    The calculation helps explain why newly revised Census Bureau figures hike the number of poor Americans to 49 million as of last year, further widening an already yawning gap between ordinary perceptions of poverty and how the government sees it.

    This breathtaking number begs the question: What does it mean to be “poor” in the United States?

    To the average American, the word “poverty” means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.

    But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images. Only 2 percent of the official poor are homeless. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.

    The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.

    In America, about 80 percent of poor families have air conditioning, nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV, half have a computer and a third have a wide-screen LCD or plasma TV.

    All these government statistics were based on the Census Bureau’s old definition of poverty. The new definition, released last week, stretches that gap between common-sense and government perspectives even further.

    Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities.

    Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.

    Remarkably, for the first time these new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.

    While the old poverty measure counted absolute purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy), the new measure counts comparative purchasing power (how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people.)

    This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.

    Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double. Under this new definition, we can reduce poverty only if the incomes of the “poor” rise much faster than those of everyone else.

    The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”

    Divorced from actual living conditions, the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.

    Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty and welfare, is senior research fellow in domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation.
     
  13. DB Bill

    DB Bill Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,012
    New definition of

    I saw in the paper the other day that the City of San Francisco has authorized renting apartments as small as 220 sq ft - they expect a large amount of construction based on this ruling soon. The reason for the zoning change is they want to provide housing for those who can only afford $1500/month.

    Just think someplace to sleep, to cook and eat, a bathroom and a place to watch your flat-screen all in 220 sq ft -- there are cabins on cruise ships bigger than that - hell, my combination den, office and trophy room is a lot bigger than that.
     
  14. chuckie68

    chuckie68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Location:
    Royal Oak, Michigan
    New definition of

    Je....sus! My cabin in the woods is 750 sq. ft.

    Chuck
     
  15. ONEDOLLARBILL

    ONEDOLLARBILL Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    257
    New definition of

    Some of the richest people in our Great Country CARE the trouble with the likes of Romney is he could care lss and stated that !That is not being American ! Being on Welfare for generations thats not American fix it but do not deny poor people help when you claim to be the Greatest Country in the World !Why is it a crime to have to pay YOUR FAIR SHARE ????
     
  16. hmb

    hmb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,429
    New definition of

    Your fair share is 14 percent. Be proud to be an American and live in the USA and pay your 14 per cent. Everybody pays. HMB
     
  17. 548

    548 Guest

    New definition of

    As posted above... Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.


    I get the feeling from reading the above responses that most of you disagree with the assertion that the above criteria accurately describes "poor" people. Let's just say the above average would be 40,000, then lets take 25% off the top for state and federal income taxes (already down to 30,000), now let's take another 25% off for housing (extremely unrealistically conservative), now down to 20,000. That leaves you with $385 a week to put gas in your car, pay your insurance premiums, put food in the cupboard, clothes in the closet, toilet paper on the roll, braces for Johnny, telephone bill, electric bill...... On and on and on, all for a family of four in a large metropolitan area. That, my friends, is poor. To argue with that is just insane.
     
  18. need to shoot more

    need to shoot more Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,227
    New definition of

    I am always at a loss when they distuinguish middle class earning $250K < there is a lot of elbow room.

    Jim
     
  19. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,146
    New definition of

    548, Is it your responsibility to better your finacial situation, or is it the governments? When the government benefits exceed the need or desire to better yourself, we have a problem.

    See if you can find 2 numbers: (1) the total amount spent by the government on such benefits/programs and then add the donated $ from the private sector (Churches, private programs, etc), and then devide it from the number of people getting those benefits.

    Some estimates exceed $60,000 per recipient!

    And, how much of those tax dollars are spent on government employees implementing them?
     
  20. Setterman

    Setterman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11,146
    New definition of

    So you want to tax them to the point they leave. England did it. They lost 60% of their upper tax base.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.