How many people in america are considered "poor"?

And what is the income level to be considered "poor"?

Why does that matter? Poor or rich and American is an American and if we are to be seen as equals we have to accept that we are equals even if our financial states are different. I don't see why someone cshould be able to enjoy the benefits of being an American without contributing to it.

I am part of the 47% because my income is below $25 thousand a year, even more I am part of the 40% who not only do not pay taxes but get money back from the Gov't. While I won't be foolish enough to refuse money given to me willingly (rich people look for loop holes too) I would not be against eliminating some of these benefits I get if it meant saving this country from an economical disaster. I would gladly give up my tax refund if it meant it would benefit the country as a whole. But I need it to be done by eliminating credits towards people in my financial position. I won't simply give my money back just because of honor or something like that. The fact that politicians waste money only makes me wanna give them less.

Being poor is not an excuse to not do your part.

There is no real level of poor. Poor is a subjective word. By many opinions I am considered poor but I have things rich people have. There are people who lvwe in homes with no electricity but they don't consider themselves poor. People who live in the streets can be considered poor, but it's not like there aren't opportunities to change that, it's not as if being poor is a sickness with no cure.

I'm curious, how come when it comes to income tax people like you think those considered should pay little or no taxes but when it comes to sales tax, no one seems to complain. Rich people pay 6.5% sales tax here in Florida just like everyone elses does. How come that's no big deal? How come no one sees that as uneven for the poor? If I can pay 6.5% sales tax for any taxable item just like a rich person does, why can't we all pay the same in income taxes? Why should they pay more income taxes (percentage wise) just because they make more?

Did I said anything regarding sales taxes?

They are about 13% here in Quebec. I don't really have an opinion on the matter regarding their social effect. On the other hand, the more you spend, the more you pay them. So high-income people who spend more still pay more of those taxes.

Can I assume that you have wife & kids? Do you have various insurances? Retirement plan?

The answer to the first question is easy.  12-13% (I think it is 12.8 now, but it varies within that range).

The answer to the second question is the evil one.  And diabolical!

Answer 2: The level to ensure 12-13% are classified poor due to the bell curve.

Told ya so!

As to the article, I am glad you put in the qualifying comment - "at least for people who haven’t been paying attention".  most of us knew that already.

As usual you miss the point. Why do you even ask questions?

Again you miss the point. It's not about how much they spend all together, it's about how much they have to pay percentage wise regardless of the amount they spend. Do you think a person who earns over $250,000 should pay higher sales taxes just because they can afford it? How much more different is a sales tax to an income tax. It's still a tax. It may be for different purposes but it is still a tax. Again I ask how come when it comes to sales tax no one is claiming rich people should pay more because they can afford it?

Do you think 2 people buying the same product from the same store should pay sales taxes based on how much they make? Rich people already pay other taxes based on income. Hell some places in Europe determine the amount of a speeding ticket based on income, why not apply that here too?

What's your point? Does having kids and a wife make me special in some way? Rich people have kids and wives too. Various insurances? Lets see, car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, if I had a house home insurance. I don't understand your point.

Once upon a time, just like racism, economic status created a seperation amongst people in this country, today we still seem some of that. People with money think they are better because they got money. Does that mean we lower ourselves to their standards and punish them just because they have more money?

Actually, no. Because somebody who earns 25K with kids and a single person who earns 25K is two entire different level of living rate. Which is why I asked.

Gee, relax man. You sound so aggressive in your posts.

That.. is...

.....

THAT IS STUPID!!!

Brad that 47% that want you to pay more so no slacking off, chop chop. Entitlements are at stake you know.

For Cikomyr:

Poverty levels from US Sept. Of Health and Human Services http://liheap.ncat.org/profiles/povertytables/FY2010/popstate.htm

For all states (except Alaska and Hawaii) and for the District of Columbia

As an aside note. A family of 3 with a household income making $50K and average credits, gets all federal income taxes paid in back.

The Federalist Papers make a great case for taxation by consumption, rather than by headcount or property.  The latter two are too given to claims of unjustness, while consumption-based taxes regulate themselves (i.e. if they are too high, people consume less, thus naturally reducing the income).

The only reason for Cikomyr to ask the question is he can't stand not pigeon holing people.  "Victim = Respect" is how he operates.  He has to know the "rich" from the "poor" because it helps him decide who deserves his respect and who doesn't.

I take this topic one step further.  Of the people who do pay taxes, how many of us are actual "net tax payers".  Add whatever that percentage to this 47% and you get the picture.  Most Americans don't add a red cent to the federal budget... and lefties want to make the percentage of people who do shoulder the tax burden even smaller.

Brad isnt' talking about general numbers here, he is talking about people... People the left couldn't possibly care less about... both the ones left shouldering the burdon, and the ones left unemployed by draconian and bigoted tax policies.

Congratulations!  You have just passed American Politics 101.  now you are ready for advanced courses.

Needs repeating.

That is pure bullshit. You don't know anything about me, except that you feel convenient to slander me because I might hold opinions different than yours.

Yesterday, in a supermarket, the woman ahead of me in the line had a minutes-long (one-sided) discussion with the cashier about the fact that she doesn't like "multi-millionaires" because there are so many poor people and multi-millionaires have so much money they don't need.

I didn't say anything (the cashier was annoyed enough), but I was thinking. Let's assume she was right and people who have money they don't need should give it away. Let's forget games like "who determines what is needed" because there are enough people who would volunteer to make that decision and not all of them would be unreasonable about it.

But even assuming all these things, the question remains why we should pick on "multi-millionaires" (i.e. people with money) when money is not the only measure of whether somebody has more than he needs.

Money is simply a measure of wealth and wealth is created by spending time at a certain ability level. Ignoring ability (which would obviously result in an uneven "distribution" of wealth created, namely a _non-distribution_ where wealth stays where it was created) it comes down to how much time each individual decides to convert to money. Time itself is wealth too.

Now, if an individual with more money than he needs should give up that excess money, I figure that an individual with more time than he needs (perhaps the individual doesn't have a job) should also give it up. Personally, I value my time higher than my income which is why I sleep, play and study longer hours than I work.

Luckily we already know how much time an individual needs, as per the wisdom of European socialism: 131 hours/week. This is the full week's 168 hours minus the 37 hours of work a week.

This means that society can demand that the unemployed spend 37 hours of their time working for charity (or the state).

Oddly enough, this is not meant when left-wingers speak of "from each according to his ability". In fact today's socialism focuses mainly on the better-known second part of Marx's witty statement: "to each according to his needs".

To paraphrase the story going around the Internet - congratulations, you have just joined the Republican party!

And the part about Money?  I totally agree!  No one should benefit from their hard work more than anyone else!  just as no one should benefit from being smarter than others, with better grades.  So let us not limit ourselves to redistributing wealth, let us also redistribute GPAs.  That way, everyone will have a solid 2.0 average!

Now how about sports!  It is grossly unfair that through an accident of birth, some people are better at it than others.  We should handicap all athletes like they so race horses!  That would be more fair.  Why can't Walter Middy Qb the next Super Bowl team?  Because some arrogant elitists wants to discriminate against him because of a fact of nature.  Time to redistribute sports as well!

We could go on until the cows come home, and it all means the same.  Someone has it, someone wants it, but the latter does not want to work for it.

I don't want him to pay more, he should pay less so he can hire more people if he needs to.