NationStates Jolt Archive

I asked this question in another thread and never got an answer while I was on, and can't find the thread now.

What defines "rich" and "poor". At what magical income amount do I become one or the other?

Well in the US, you are poor if you do not make 3 times the cost of a nourishing diet in 1965 as adjusted for inflation. As for rich, well there is no magical number it is all a matter of personal preference.

Really depends on the purchasing power the amount of $$ you have or earn provides you. In some parts of the world earning $50 a month classifies you as 'rich' and in others as dirt poor.

I'd say if the money you earn or already have allows you to purchase not just the basic needs, think: food, housing, etc, but to also indulge in luxury then you are definitely rich. If you can barely provide your basic needs or not even that then you have a right to call yourself poor.

Most of it has to do with things like how old you are and what your expenses look like. A 5 year old with 10 bucks, for example, is a relatively rich 5 year old. When I was 19 I lived in an apartment with two other people for pretty cheap: we were "poor" I guess but our expenses were so low and we didn't have things like medical bills that we were able to afford some of the things we wanted, which was mostly weed and food.

As you get older, you've got to deal with things like cars and presumably houses or some other sort of dwelling, which is usually financed through any one of many insitutions. At this point, your standards begin to change. It's all dependent on your personal circumstances, really.

I think if you've contemplated becoming a part time prostitute in addition to your current job(s) to pay off bills, you just might be poor. If you can comfortably wipe yourself with 100 dollar bills after using the bathroom, I think you've earrned the title of rich.

Well I always am hearing how we have to tax the rich and help the poor. But who are they? If there is to be legislation on these things what is the standard?

What defines "rich" and "poor". At what magical income amount do I become one or the other?
No magic about it: rich is having more than you need, poor is having less than you need.

No magic about it: rich is having more than you need, poor is having less than you need.
So where does Middle Class come in?

we were able to afford some of the things we wanted, which was mostly weed and food.

Which, consequently, makes your food bill skyrocket.

:p

I asked this question in another thread and never got an answer while I was on, and can't find the thread now.

What defines "rich" and "poor". At what magical income amount do I become one or the other?

Rich have more than me, the poor less and the middle class are about where I am.

Well I always am hearing how we have to tax the rich and help the poor. But who are they? If there is to be legislation on these things what is the standard?
It depends on the context. In international statistics poor is having less than $1 per day, rich is not well defined, but everyone in western Europe and America is rich. In statistics from your country it depends on the political color of whoever made the statistics, but if you are in a western country the thing above (income corresponding to more than three times what most people eat) is closer than the international version. In "tax the rich to feed the poor (until there ain't no rich no more)" "rich" means anyone with more money than I (or whoever says it) have and "poor" means I and everyone with less money than I have. The notions are really not absolute, richer than X and poorer than X (were X is a person) makes sense, rich and poor with no clarification means nothing.

Which, consequently, makes your food bill skyrocket.

:p
You noticed that too, eh?

Want to help poor farmers? Smoke a lot of weed!

You noticed that too, eh?

Want to help poor farmers? Smoke a lot of weed!

That's the spirit!

I asked this question in another thread and never got an answer while I was on, and can't find the thread now.

What defines "rich" and "poor". At what magical income amount do I become one or the other?
"Rich" and "poor" are subjective evaluations which, like most subjective evaluations, serve little purpose other than to keep people apart. There is no magic line you can draw with "rich people" on one side, and "poor people" on the other. If you feel rich, then you are. Period.

If you feel rich, then you are. Period.

Hahahahaha So, that is 'spiritualy rich' or you really imagine that by 'feeling rich' my bankaccount, which not so incidentally is way in the red, will magically skyrocket? :)

Hahahahaha So, that is 'spiritualy rich' or you really imagine that by 'feeling rich' my bankaccount, which not so incidentally is way in the red, will magically skyrocket? :)
"Rich" is a state of mind, not a bank account. If you allow the current size of your bank account to fix your state of mind, you'll never be "rich," either in a psychological way or a financial way.

As with many things, size is not important! :D

"Rich" is a state of mind, not a bank account. If you allow the current size of your bank account to fix your state of mind, you'll never be "rich," either in a psychological way or a financial way.

Aha, so you inserted another topic, as the original clearly referred to 'rich in a monetairy way,' and didn't ask for "your personal definition of: 'rich'." :D



As with many things, size is not important! :D

He He

Is that what she told you? Women can be such liars. hahahaha

Now I'll boil this down to the ultimate purpose of this thread:

I want those who denounce things like, but not limited to, the Fair Tax, on the claim of "it hurts the poor" to defend their position by defining the poor.

I want those who are asking for higher taxes for the rich, on the basis that "they can afford it" to defend their position by defining the rich.

I'll assume that Middle Class are those above the poor but below the rich.

I asked this question in another thread and never got an answer while I was on, and can't find the thread now.

What defines "rich" and "poor". At what magical income amount do I become one or the other?

"Poor" is when people give you money and ask for your vote.

"Rich" is when people take your money and ignore your vote.

Check your Post and your Tax Bill. You will know which category you fall into. :headbang:

Aha, so you inserted another topic, as the original clearly referred to 'rich in a monetairy way,' and didn't ask for "your personal definition of: 'rich'." :D

He He

Is that what she told you? Women can be such liars. hahahaha
You chose your name well. :D

So where does Middle Class come in?

Having exactly what you "need" to live. For some people, that's clothing, shelter, food, and post-secondary education. For others, it's a yacht and an indoor pool.

So where does Middle Class come in?
Thats where the government takes from you more than they give, while pretending it's the other way around, - thus they try to buy your (swing) vote.

"Poor" is when people give you money and ask for your vote.

"Rich" is when people take your money and ignore your vote.

Ah the rich, society's ironic victims.

Ah the rich, society's ironic victims.
Well, there's not enough of them for their vote to matter, so they have to make up for it by (trying to) buying politicians.

Politicians know that they need Votes, so they buy Voters.

The only way they can buy voters is to take money from people to give away.

So in essence, Politicians steal money from "rich" people (anyone with enough money to steal) who then have to voluntairly give away more money in hopes that the Politicians won't go too overboard when the Voters cry for more Bread and Circuses.

That's why a "rich" schmuck like me who makes a whole $20,000/yr US gets 25% of his income sucked away by the Politicians each year. How Ironic.

Poor, make under $20K a year, roughly...that make sense? Well actually after Bush leaves it will probably be about $30K a year or less that makes you poor, with the inevitable recession thats coming upon us in the USA.

Well, there's not enough of them for their vote to matter, so they have to make up for it by (trying to) buying politicians.

Right... but the total opposite would be a few dominating the many. It's best then for the rich to rely on restrictions to political power for protection.

So in essence, Politicians steal money from "rich" people (anyone with enough money to steal)...

Tax is theft, blah blah blah.

That's why a "rich" schmuck like me who makes a whole $20,000/yr US gets 25% of his income sucked away by the Politicians each year. How Ironic.

I'd hate to break it to you, but:

1) You are not rich.

2) 25% isn't all that much considering what you get in return.

2) 25% isn't all that much considering what you get in return.


Oh? Please do illustrate. Explain just what I get that is worth more than the cost of any other item I pay for, including housing.

Be careful not to include items paid for by other taxes than income tax.

Be careful not to include items paid for by other taxes than income tax.

If by that you mean not confusing federal and state services, or not including things paid for by user fees, or social security, then that's fine.

Otherwise, how do you seperate price increases due to an excise tax and income tax? It's not like taxes are set aside and individual budgets created...

But ignoring that. I think $5,000 a year for protection from foreign invasion, an interstate transportation system, federal police protection, and federal level conflict resolution is quite a steal.

Now, if that was 25% of $1 million, then you might have a better argument.

But ignoring that. I think $5,000 a year for protection from foreign invasion, an interstate transportation system, federal police protection, and federal level conflict resolution is quite a steal.
I beg to differ. Our military is a highly offensive entity and as 9/11 showed, isn't very well suited to matters of national defense. About the only thing our military has going for it is the fact that it can, if it wants, destroy all life on Earth. Somehow, I think this particular tidbit of information is going to keep any would-be invaders away for quite some time, my $5,000 be damned. Don't get me wrong; I think we should have a military and it's swell that it's so powerful, but I really wish it would concern itself more with defense than offense. At this point in time our foriegn policy situation has become such a mess that an offensive armed force is almost a necessity, unfortunately. I'd say we've been fucking ourselves with our pants on [at least as far as foreign policy/military relations goes] since 1917.

Also, I don't much care for what the Federal Government does with Interstate funds. interstate funds are regularly used as leverage by the Feds [since they control the allocation of said funds] to force the states to do what they want, which is incredibly fucked up because that's where the goddamn money came from. When they do things like say "raise the drinking age in your state to 21 or you get no highway money" or "enact zero-tolerance [read: zero intelligence] drug driving policies or lose highway funding" they're basically saying that you can't get your own money back unless you play by their very specific set of rules. So yeah... so much for that argument. I'll agree with you about the Police though, provided they do their job correctly.


Now, if that was 25% of $1 million, then you might have a better argument.
Only if you make $1 million, we're not talking 25%, we're talking more like 40-45%.

I beg to differ. Our military is a highly offensive entity and as 9/11 showed, isn't very well suited to matters of national defense. About the only thing our military has going for it is the fact that it can, if it wants, destroy all life on Earth. Somehow, I think this particular tidbit of information is going to keep any would-be invaders away for quite some time, my $5,000 be damned. Don't get me wrong; I think we should have a military and it's swell that it's so powerful, but I really wish it would concern itself more with defense than offense. At this point in time our foriegn policy situation has become such a mess that an offensive armed force is almost a necessity, unfortunately. I'd say we've been fucking ourselves with our pants on [at least as far as foreign policy/military relations goes] since 1917.

Well, so the military could be handled better. I'm not saying I'm totally happy with the armed forces, but could you get any better for a fraction of $5,000 a year?

Also, I don't much care for what the Federal Government does with Interstate funds. interstate funds are regularly used as leverage by the Feds [since they control the allocation of said funds] to force the states to do what they want, which is incredibly fucked up because that's where the goddamn money came from. When they do things like say "raise the drinking age in your state to 21 or you get no highway money" or "enact zero-tolerance [read: zero intelligence] drug driving policies or lose highway funding" they're basically saying that you can't get your own money back unless you play by their very specific set of rules. So yeah... so much for that argument. I'll agree with you about the Police though, provided they do their job correctly.

Alright, so the government is misusing its funding and violating the doctrine of federalism. I don't necessarily assent to such action, but my point is the roads are there right? They are very useful right? Maybe we could get the same for less money, but fraction of $5,000 a year seems like a steal to me.

Only if you make $1 million, we're not talking 25%, we're talking more like 40-45%.

That's true.

Still I was just saying that if you were paying $250,000 a year as opposed to $5,000 you might have something to complain about. I wouldn't argue so, but I could at least accept it.

Yes, paying taxes blows. Yes, we could be paying much less. Yes, it is conceivable that some of what we pay for isn't necessary. But it seemed that B0zzy was suprised that we get benefits from our taxes. Clearly we do.

Hey guys, you're starting to thread-jack. Reel it in would you?

ok I'm still looking for some actual numbers here people. We'll even narrow it down and say in terms of the US.

If you want to tax the rich more and not tax the poor then we need to define both these terms. What are they?

ok I'm still looking for some actual numbers here people. We'll even narrow it down and say in terms of the US.

If you want to tax the rich more and not tax the poor then we need to define both these terms. What are they?
"Rich" and "poor" are not well defined terms. People who use them without specifying in the same post what income levels they mean are just generalising. Your question is like asking "What level of illumination is dark?"

well then if such is the case no one can say for us to add more taxes to the rich and less for the poor.

well then if such is the case no one can say for us to add more taxes to the rich and less for the poor.

Actually, if you are looking to generate revenue, tax the rich less and the poor more. It's fairly easy to take money away from the poor. If you try to take money away from the rich, they will fight back.

Rich and poor are subjective terms which must be defined subjectively. Part of this subjective definition might involve changing the definition depending upon the situation:

I want those who denounce things like, but not limited to, the Fair Tax, on the claim of "it hurts the poor" to defend their position by defining the poor.In this instance, the poor would be anyone who couldn't afford to put their money into the bank to avoid paying taxes on it. The rich would do so, thus skipping out on the tax.

I want those who are asking for higher taxes for the rich, on the basis that "they can afford it" to defend their position by defining the rich.In this instance, the rich are those who are making more than enough to live comfortably.