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.
No the answer does not lie "between the methods", whatever that means.
The supplemental poverty measure is more accurate, period. Not taking costs into account, and only taking income into account, only tells half the story.
Ok. I drove a lexus, owned my own home (by myself) and was in the poverty category by your calculations.
I really don't think we want to be handing out food stamps to people like me.
(and as far as I know, that's not done)
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Again with the anecdotes. Your personal experience has no bearing on what would be considered a good statistic. You are one data point among millions.
This is not the hill you want to die on.
Of course, and there are hundreds of thousand of others that fall within that span of being computed as poor when they are not. We used to use these numbers at my work in part.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I define poverty as simply having a minimalist lifestyle, and your entire monthly income being used to pay bills.
Yeah, but by that definition you could be a billionaire and still in poverty. Or at least I could.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
It also has a whole bunch of the richest people in the world. It's a microcosm of America.
Its high degree of wealth inequality sets it apart from the rest of America. California is moving toward a situation more typical of Latin America and Asia, which I'm sure has much more to do with its demographics than with Pelosi.
Of course, and there are hundreds of thousand of others that fall within that span of being computed as poor when they are not. We used to use these numbers at my work in part.
So what? Are you saying the government calculated the two poverty rates incorrectly? And that you have some special knowledge that would be more accurate? The supplemental rate takes into account situations like yours, and also situations where people are rightly in poverty not because of low incomes (by national standards) but because of high costs (by national standards).
The question is whether the definition of poverty should include costs as well as income.
Anecdotes don't disprove statistics. You are taking the wrong tack here. If you want to argue that the official poverty rate (income alone) is a better measure than the supplemental rate (income and costs) then you need to make an argument about why costs can be ignored *for all people*, not just for your own case.
Yep, Cali is a world leader in income inequality. They really need to implement a 60% income tax to confiscate from their wealthy and redistribute to illegals and the homeless.
Why not a 80% corporate tax to make those ba#terds pay for their corruption?
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.