Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being poor is a relative thing dependent on where you live, even within the United States. Today, in the U.S., you can fall into the ranks of the poor and still have a wide screen TV, high speed internet, cable TV, a car, and a multitude of other goodies and be classified as poor. That's a bit different than being poor in the Sudan or many other third world countries. During the late 1940's I lived as a teenager with my mother in a 950 sq. ft. no bedroom apartment, no phone, no TV, ice box instead of a fridge, no car. Mom worked as a waitress and I always had a job for spending money. We never considered ourselves as being poor and neither did anyone else refer to us as being poor. There will always be people at the top of the income and wage scale and that is the way it should be in my opinion, as it provides incentive to many to improve their lot in life. Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane. The truly poor and needy must and will be taken care of. We will never allow any of our countrymen to starve in the streets and die.
I have to agree...even the "poor" in America are pretty well-off, generally speaking. Go to some other country and see how the truly destitute live....it's horrendous. Our "poor" people have it pretty good, even tho' I'm quite sure they don't see it that way.
We've been at the bottom of the barrel, income-wise, ourselves. It's not fun. It's stressful. BUT....it makes you want to do better and have more, so you WORK to improve your circumstances. While we couldn't even afford McDonalds, our kids never realized how little we had. Now, we're not what I consider to be "rich"...but we are comfortable, after 25 years of striving to better ourselves. We've NEVER taken a penny of taxpayer money in the form of unemployment or welfare. We WORKED our butts off for the life we've obtained.
While everyone has the same opportunity to better themselves, not everyone will reach the same level...and that's ok. That's what makes the world "go round". I know we'll never be Rockefellers, or Trumps, or whoever...but we will be ok....assuming we keep our country free and strong.
Being poor is a relative thing dependent on where you live, even within the United States. Today, in the U.S., you can fall into the ranks of the poor and still have a wide screen TV, high speed internet, cable TV, a car, and a multitude of other goodies and be classified as poor. That's a bit different than being poor in the Sudan or many other third world countries. During the late 1940's I lived as a teenager with my mother in a 950 sq. ft. no bedroom apartment, no phone, no TV, ice box instead of a fridge, no car. Mom worked as a waitress and I always had a job for spending money. We never considered ourselves as being poor and neither did anyone else refer to us as being poor. There will always be people at the top of the income and wage scale and that is the way it should be in my opinion, as it provides incentive to many to improve their lot in life. Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane. The truly poor and needy must and will be taken care of. We will never allow any of our countrymen to starve in the streets and die.
True, and that's why we contribute to private charities. We should eliminate government welfare.
Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane. The truly poor and needy must and will be taken care of. We will never allow any of our countrymen to starve in the streets and die.
I absolutely agree income redistribution is insane. When I was making 8 and 10 dollars an hour I would see my money disappear into taxes, but it was like my money went to nothing. When I work the two jobs I have now, my wages again, disappear even into more nothing. This is exactly why im libertarian. The real main things im concerned about as far as COL are affordable housing(rent or own) and the rights of both sides, affordable healthcare and food. Everything else is really a waste. Charities are no better then government handouts. It's all wasted in upper management.
I could try to save up for 20-30 years to retire from a mcjob, but the moment a health problem arises, your saving is gone and you're screwed.
Being poor is a relative thing dependent on where you live, even within the United States. Today, in the U.S., you can fall into the ranks of the poor and still have a wide screen TV, high speed internet, cable TV, a car, and a multitude of other goodies and be classified as poor. That's a bit different than being poor in the Sudan or many other third world countries. During the late 1940's I lived as a teenager with my mother in a 950 sq. ft. no bedroom apartment, no phone, no TV, ice box instead of a fridge, no car. Mom worked as a waitress and I always had a job for spending money. We never considered ourselves as being poor and neither did anyone else refer to us as being poor. There will always be people at the top of the income and wage scale and that is the way it should be in my opinion, as it provides incentive to many to improve their lot in life. Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane. The truly poor and needy must and will be taken care of. We will never allow any of our countrymen to starve in the streets and die.
I have been saying for decades that the government definition of poverty - which considers only cash income and neither non-cash redistribution (like housing and health benefits) nor owned assets (which can provide cash-free consumption)- is pretty much useless and meaningless.
According to the government, a retiree with a paid-off $500K home, $11K income, and no property taxes (e.g. Texas exempts seniors from property taxes) is poor, while a childless burger flipper working for minimum wage and paying half his income on rent is not poor. The homeowner has a higher standard of living than the renter, yet the former is considered poor and the latter not poor; does this make sense?
There is also a lot of UPWARD redistribution that is not as obvious as the downward kind we see every day in programs like welfare and food stamps.
Like the property tax breaks many homeowners get in many states - such as the exemption seniors get in Texas. Many states (over twenty) also have extra (higher) property taxes on rental property. Since median homeowner income is more than two times median renter income, that is almost purely upward redistribution.
State and local government tend to redistribute income upward more than downward; the bottom income quintile pays a higher state and local tax rate than all other income groups.
Since humans are a social and competitive species, relative poverty does matter, especially for unmarried men, for whom relative poverty makes one nearly Untouchable in a social context.
Being poor is a relative thing dependent on where you live, even within the United States. Today, in the U.S., you can fall into the ranks of the poor and still have a wide screen TV, high speed internet, cable TV, a car, and a multitude of other goodies and be classified as poor. That's a bit different than being poor in the Sudan or many other third world countries. During the late 1940's I lived as a teenager with my mother in a 950 sq. ft. no bedroom apartment, no phone, no TV, ice box instead of a fridge, no car. Mom worked as a waitress and I always had a job for spending money. We never considered ourselves as being poor and neither did anyone else refer to us as being poor. There will always be people at the top of the income and wage scale and that is the way it should be in my opinion, as it provides incentive to many to improve their lot in life. Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane. The truly poor and needy must and will be taken care of. We will never allow any of our countrymen to starve in the streets and die.
Yes, we always re-define poverty upwards. The bottom 20% or so, without regard for the actual circumstance.
I absolutely agree income redistribution is insane. When I was making 8 and 10 dollars an hour I would see my money disappear into taxes, but it was like my money went to nothing. When I work the two jobs I have now, my wages again, disappear even into more nothing. This is exactly why im libertarian. The real main things im concerned about as far as COL are affordable housing(rent or own) and the rights of both sides, affordable healthcare and food. Everything else is really a waste. Charities are no better then government handouts. It's all wasted in upper management.
I could try to save up for 20-30 years to retire from a mcjob, but the moment a health problem arises, your saving is gone and you're screwed.
Did you know there's a war on rental housing in many parts of the country? Like why oh why does Arizona allow counties and cities to tax rent??? That's upward redistribution but I don't see people complaining about that.
Or the subtle redistribution caused by exclusionary zoning, which artificially restricts the supply of rental housing below what the private sector would provide in a free market. (Lower supply = higher rents.) (See Thomas Sowell's Markets and Minorities, Chapter 7.)
There's also the standard zoning which prohibits tiny properties which a burger flipper might be able to afford to buy - the example I use is a 400-sf house on a 2,500-sf piece of land; not nearly large enough to meet minimum lot size requirements.
Then there are the "split roll" property taxes in over 20 states, where rental property is taxed at a higher rate than owner-occupied homes - more upward redistribution.
Government is in the business of keeping the lower working class - those earning in the neighborhood of 8 and 10 dollars an hour - in rent slavery, for the benefit of government (more revenue through higher property tax rates) and landlords (more profits and more wealth).
I have to agree...even the "poor" in America are pretty well-off, generally speaking. Go to some other country and see how the truly destitute live....it's horrendous. Our "poor" people have it pretty good, even tho' I'm quite sure they don't see it that way.
At the risk of sounding sexist, I suggest that it is harder for "poor" men to believe they have it pretty good than it is for "poor" women.
George Gilder (and yes, many people have called his early writings sexist) said that in any society, men who are relatively poor (i.e. who have fewer economic resources than the average woman in the same society) are socially at a severe disadvantage (Wealth and Poverty, 1984).
Poor men might have it pretty good, but in a society where most men are more affluent, poor men don't get the girl and don't get married. (Poor men have much lower marriage rates than rich men.)
More broadly, poor men don't have it pretty good when it comes to the non-economic measures of having a good life.
With the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment (read: family-wage jobs for men without a lot of education), life expectancy for these men is falling, not increasing.
At the risk of sounding sexist, I suggest that it is harder for "poor" men to believe they have it pretty good than it is for "poor" women.
George Gilder (and yes, many people have called his early writings sexist) said that in any society, men who are relatively poor (i.e. who have fewer economic resources than the average woman in the same society) are socially at a severe disadvantage (Wealth and Poverty, 1984).
Poor men might have it pretty good, but in a society where most men are more affluent, poor men don't get the girl and don't get married. (Poor men have much lower marriage rates than rich men.)
More broadly, poor men don't have it pretty good when it comes to the non-economic measures of having a good life.
With the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment (read: family-wage jobs for men without a lot of education), life expectancy for these men is falling, not increasing.
That is not having it pretty good.
So to sum it up, ya aint been laid in yrs. Is that what your trying to say?
Being poor is a relative thing dependent on where you live, even within the United States. Today, in the U.S., you can fall into the ranks of the poor and still have a wide screen TV, high speed internet, cable TV, a car, and a multitude of other goodies and be classified as poor. That's a bit different than being poor in the Sudan or many other third world countries. During the late 1940's I lived as a teenager with my mother in a 950 sq. ft. no bedroom apartment, no phone, no TV, ice box instead of a fridge, no car. Mom worked as a waitress and I always had a job for spending money. We never considered ourselves as being poor and neither did anyone else refer to us as being poor. There will always be people at the top of the income and wage scale and that is the way it should be in my opinion, as it provides incentive to many to improve their lot in life. Attempts to balance out or equalize everyone's finances and living conditions via INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is insane. The truly poor and needy must and will be taken care of. We will never allow any of our countrymen to starve in the streets and die.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that the government definition of poverty - which considers only cash income and neither non-cash redistribution (like housing and health benefits) nor owned assets (which can provide cash-free consumption)- is pretty much useless and meaningless.
