So do you still think you can get out of poverty?

Everything is relative.

In other countries, having an actual floor in your hut is rich someplace else, while having a dirt floor is middle class. That is their standard.

Having a basic flip phone might be indicative of someone not being able to afford a luxury like a smart phone in the West, which could mean you are at or under the poverty line.

We've all heard the "there are starving kids in Africa" line some place or another when we don't clear our plates at dinner, and that's bullshit; the food was not going to them either way, so apples and oranges right there. But the truth is, there are starving people every where.

Majority of our poor suffer from mental illness due to the closure of many many many hospitals during Reagan's tenure; I would not call needlessly suffering from schizophrenia, dementia, and other disorders "fine". I would not call shoddy housing initiatives, persecution and discrimination based on socioeconomic level, and other things "fine".

Simply because our poor in the US are objectively better off than the poor in other countries does not mean we don't have a problem.

Oh OK, then, let's just be happy with where we are at and not bother trying to improve our lot in life. Who cares about those "small isolated cases", they're soooooooooo insignificant. They probably deserve to be poor.

"Hey, at least we are not North Korea, so stop your bitching" said no one in the US ever.

Mentalities like this are why the US is ranked:

17th out of 40 countries for education. Hey at least we aren't 40th place, guys! WOOHOO!
27th of 34. Well we could be better, but frack it, we ain't 34 or even 28!
We place 16th on the freest countries list. WTF? I thought we were all about freedom! Oh well could be worse, it can always be worse!
As for safety, we ranked 114 out of 160 countries or so. That puts us in the same spot as Riwanda and El Savador. Good thing we have guns! And that statement is in no way ironic since gun ownership factors into our lack of safety HAHAHAHAHA
I believe Alabama was just ranked as the most poverty-stricken place in the Western world. Way to be, guys, way to be.

So yeah, at least we are not last. We're fine. Just fine.

Why would that blow your mind? 12 years old are also "under 34 years old". You don't expect them to live at home? Let's assume for fun that each age has the same amount of people. So everybody under the age of 17 would be 1/2 of everybody under 34. But only 1/4 of them live with their parents? So half of those under 17 don't? Yeah, what a nonsensical statistic.

Just a reminder..

the core question in the OP is really not about poverty despite the title. The question is do you still think taxing the poor and middle at higher rates then the wealthy is going to help the economy?

I am amazed at how hard people on the right fight tooth and nail to get their taxes increased, health care taken away, and corporate handouts increased. They are corporate socialists

@drlostrib: For me poverty is working 10 hours every day non stop to get money to eat and have a bed to sleep. I think I might end up suiciding or maybe gonna leave society as a whole and go with my old car to the middle of nowhere so I can prentend Im free for a while and if it works alright Ill keep living like that. In worst case scenario Ill just die from starvation. But I hate slave work the entire life idea

You miss the point of the starving African kids line. It isn't about sending your scraps overseas. It is about not getting so absorbed in the abundance around you that you become wasteful. It is a reminder that wasting the abundance you live in simply because you no longer find it novel is kind of a scum move. Not everyone has it, and you could lose it in time. So maybe don't throw it in the trash. Particularly if you are going to ask for more of something else.

The relativity of poverty is also sort of the point. It is used to describe people who are starving to death because they have no food to eat, and people who are not going to go hungry even though they are having trouble keeping up with their credit card bills after charging needlessly expensive computer parts. Computer parts that only really serve to improve the efficiency of expensive high end software, and only manage to do so if you invest in a bunch of other high end computer parts.

No one is claiming that life should stop improving for everyone. Many however tend to ignore how much life has improved in a very short amount of time. I means seriously think about the above bit for a little bit. Our poor not only have credit cards they can use to buy several months worth of food if they need to, they are so secure that they use this ability to make pricey entertainment programs load faster. Fear of going hungry is so foreign that it is trumped by the dread of extended loading times.

@AlexKidd5000: According to the Brookings Institute, you can avoid poverty by doing 3 simple things:

1. Graduating from high school (people tend not to follow this rule)

2. Waiting to get married after 21 and do not have children till after being married (a lot of people don't follow this rule)

3. Having a full-time job (again many people don't follow this rule)

"If you do all of these things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you'll have a 74% chance of being in the middle class."

There is tons of economic mobility in the United States, but we also live in a world where the left praises single mother-hood and falsely labels single mothers as heroes. Unfortunately, this only encourages women to be single parents and they end up in poverty. I have few friends from high school that had kids before they were married or they just plain dropped out of high school and they are all collecting well fare now. Just like with Gremlins, you gotta follow the rules!

It's not delusional to see you whine about being labelled politically and then you doing it. It's shows your hypocrisy. Not that I expect you to understand that.

Not going to lie........I lol'ed.

I believe in what you earn, not handouts. Safety nets are one thing, but to make a living off them is wrong.

I have news for you............the middle class is shrinking and it's not the fault of the middle class........so what you posted was just bs.

I'm middle class and I am doing just fine. Also it isn't bs, what I posted were facts. You may disagree, but facts are facts. Now you are going to say that the Brookings Institute is biased right? Funny thing is, they are an organization that leans to the left. I love making you look dumb.

Then I assume you are against corporate welfare as well?

Ooohhh.......anecdotal evidence. And it's nice of you to let us know you have paid no attention to the facts surrounding class in the US. So I suppose we shouldn't take your posts seriously in the least. The middle class has been eroding since the Reagan era. Coincidence? I think not. Every time we take steps forward we get another trickle down conservative in office that screws the middle class again.

I'm doing fine as well but I'm not going to cover my eyes and ears to avoid seeing the struggle people have paying their bills.

that is actually very inaccurate.

The best way to describe the American economic system is as such 'the worlds leading corporate socialism state'

the middle and the bottom subsidize the wealthy.

@LJS9502_basic: I second that- the position against wellfare. Socialism is one of the dumbest philosophies out there- I'm breathing, therefore give me something. When did Socialism work? Never. People are poor because they make poor decisions and it shouldn't be a government's job to give them money. I am highly against wellfare because it is often abused.

Maybe the people struggling should have followed the rules. I am not going to pay for other people's mistakes and neither should the government. Unless you have a valid argument, which you never do, I suggest you move along.

And yet the government makes the laws that are stacked against upward mobility and maintaining wealth for the very rich. If you can't see that then I don't think you understand the effects policy has on society and therefore talking with you is pointless.

And I see you aren't complaining about the government and corporate welfare. Which is abused and which by the way is a higher cost than individual welfare.

Hahaha! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You know the rich pay more taxes than everyone combined right? Or did you miss that in poli sci 101? I suggest doing research, like serious research which I do for several hours a day, read a few books, go to a few events etc. because you are coming off as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Just saying.

The problem with you, is that you chose to ignore evidence when it is presented because it goes against what you were taught. Sorry, but you were taught wrong. Again for being someone that claims they are "moderate" you have a lot of liberal beliefs.

Hahaha! You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You know the rich pay a small percentage of their actual income. The fact that they have a higher percentage is not the same as paying more. A non wealthy person takes home much less pay for their basic cost of living than the wealthy do. Many live paycheck to paycheck and it's NOT because of bad choices.

You present all the Fox News/Republican party talking points with ZERO understanding of the underlying situation.

Fox news? Hardly.

You represent all the liberal dummies who argue with feelings rather than facts. No point in arguing with you because its like talking arguing with a house plant.

No such thing.

The United states is without question the worlds leader for corportate socialism.

You realize the subsidize and tax breaks that companies get are friggin MASSIVE. its also refered to as the largest Corportate welfare system in human history

I remember you from a discussion only a few weeks old in which you said almost the very same thing in your various replies about how your family lives together due to finances. I don't remember if you revealed your age but you did tell me you worked in retail. What would make your life start to change and don't tell me more money. I want to know what steps you think you could do (realistically or not) to slowly improve your situation.

lmao

Just for the conversation

https://www.google.com/search?q=corporate+welfare+vs+social+welfare&oq=corporate+welfare+vs+&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.4743j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

corporate welfare is more than social welfare

I usually don't get political, but I know firsthand about this topic, I've worked in the public housing industry for almost 20 years. What Mighty-Lu-Bu posted above is absolutely true.

"1. Graduating from high school (people tend not to follow this rule)

2. Waiting to get married after 21 and do not have children till after being married (a lot of people don't follow this rule)

3. Having a full-time job (again many people don't follow this rule)

If you do all of these things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent. Meanwhile, you'll have a 74% chance of being in the middle class."

While there are some people who will never have the mental and physical capacity to finish their education and hold down a good paying job (and almost 100% of people on both sides of the aisle will agree they should receive help), those are a very low percentage of people receiving "welfare". Almost always the people on welfare have made poor choices. Dropping out of school, having babies is almost always a factor, and some type of substance abuse is very common as well. Another problem is that children in public housing grow up thinking the way the parent(s) is living is normal, so they make the same decisions in their lives. I've seen 4 generations of the same family live the the same property and none of them ever had a single job in their lives.

My sister also works as a school psychologist. People receiving welfare benefits often try to milk benefits for all they are worth from every place in "the system". They will demand their child be tested for certain issues so that they will receive more money every month. When the kids don't actually have the issues they want them to have, they will throw FITS.

Who is greedier? The person who works their butt off and pays 15-50% of their income (ie 15-50% of their labor) towards taxes and society but asks that the govt. take a little less? Or the person that makes bad decisions, pays nothing into society and does nothing for society, but expects others to pay for their lifestyle? And the "rich people" target is BS. Everyone thinks anyone who makes a bit more than them is "rich". But the gap between the middle class and even a handsomely paid doctor/lawyer is closer than the doctor/lawyer to the real "mega-rich".

That said, there are also people who live in public housing that take their education seriously, make sound decisions, and get themselves out of poverty. I LOVE seeing and hearing those stories. The sad part is that they are often mocked and sometimes abused by their peers, b/c they are not acting "properly" in some of their peers' eyes.

I also have a several friends that were raised in public housing and found varying degrees of success. One was my foster brother, he could have went to college for free, but instead he unfortunately decided to live a life with drugs and gangs, went to prison, and is still in poverty. Another friend went on to play football in the NFL, retired, and is living great. Another started a company from scratch that builds low income housing properties and he is a multi-mutli millionaire.

So yes, almost everyone can pull themselves out of poverty, at least to middle class level. The choices you make determine your success much more than anything else in life.

I assume many of you in this thread are Millennials. Only time and experience can teach you certain things, and that's ok, that's life. Maybe the biggest real problem facing you is student debt. The amount of tuition that these colleges charge nowadays is RIDICULOUS and THAT is not a good thing for people trying to educate themselves, find better jobs, nor for upward mobility. Instead of protesting boogeymen and random politicians, I'd be protesting the college president, admins, and handsomely paid profs. Start demanding answers from THEM as to why your tuition is out of control. Why are these colleges providing so many extra services (that you pay for whether you use or not) and hiring so many extra people (that you pay for whether you use or not)? Why does your prof charge so much money for a BS book that they make minor edits to from time to time? Your prof that exclaims how evil capitalism is and how awesome socialism is, has that prof put their money where their mouth is, went to the administration, and demanded their pay to be cut and benefits lessened so that you and your peers aren't in debt for life?

facts would suggest otherwise.

those in the highest earning quintile (81st to 99th percentile ) earn about 55% of the income and pay nearly 70% of the federal income taxes received by the government, as you would expect with a progressive tax system

@comp_atkins said:

@tryit said:

@comp_atkins said:

@sonicare said:

the government just needs to take 90% of the wealth from rich people and redistribute it. Rich should subsidize the poor.

the rich DO subsidize the poor.

if it's such a great deal, go be poor

that is actually very inaccurate.

The best way to describe the American economic system is as such 'the worlds leading corporate socialism state'

the middle and the bottom subsidize the wealthy.

facts would suggest otherwise.

those in the highest earning quintile (81st to 99th percentile ) earn about 55% of the income and pay nearly 70% of the federal income taxes received by the government, as you would expect with a progressive tax system

not including the tax rates which for large companies is net around 13% corporate welfare is 92 billion, while social is 59 billion. This also does not include long standing subsidies like for farming etc.

https://idavidmcallen.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/government-spends-more-on-corporate-welfare-subsidies-than-social-welfare-programs/

Honest question. Why should corporations pay any taxes at all (sales tax aside b/c we know the govt wants a cut of every single transaction)? I mean, you work i n cubical #432 at your company, you'll pay taxes on what your corporation gives you, as will everyone else working at that company, including the CEO. Why should the govt. tax YOUR labor twice (once from your corp and once from you)?

Corporations aren't poor, they don't need food stamps.

how much money went to companies during the 2008 collapse?

Oh I use facts and I'm not a liberal. Conservatives by the way are the ones who use feelings rather than facts. See Newt.

It boggles my mind that republican voters don't take basic courses. Do they even attend college?

https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/

@tryit said:

@comp_atkins said:

@tryit said:

@comp_atkins said:

@sonicare said:

the government just needs to take 90% of the wealth from rich people and redistribute it. Rich should subsidize the poor.

the rich DO subsidize the poor.

if it's such a great deal, go be poor

that is actually very inaccurate.

The best way to describe the American economic system is as such 'the worlds leading corporate socialism state'

the middle and the bottom subsidize the wealthy.

facts would suggest otherwise.

those in the highest earning quintile (81st to 99th percentile ) earn about 55% of the income and pay nearly 70% of the federal income taxes received by the government, as you would expect with a progressive tax system

not including the tax rates which for large companies is net around 13% corporate welfare is 92 billion, while social is 59 billion. This also does not include long standing subsidies like for farming etc.

https://idavidmcallen.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/government-spends-more-on-corporate-welfare-subsidies-than-social-welfare-programs/

that may be the case, but the revenue for that welfare is coming predominately from the wealthier people. as was the original argument made.

maybe you could argue that the wealthy are subsidizing the wealthy.

@comp_atkins said:

@tryit said:

@comp_atkins said:

@tryit said:

that is actually very inaccurate.

The best way to describe the American economic system is as such 'the worlds leading corporate socialism state'

the middle and the bottom subsidize the wealthy.

facts would suggest otherwise.

those in the highest earning quintile (81st to 99th percentile ) earn about 55% of the income and pay nearly 70% of the federal income taxes received by the government, as you would expect with a progressive tax system

not including the tax rates which for large companies is net around 13% corporate welfare is 92 billion, while social is 59 billion. This also does not include long standing subsidies like for farming etc.

https://idavidmcallen.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/government-spends-more-on-corporate-welfare-subsidies-than-social-welfare-programs/

that may be the case, but the revenue for that welfare is coming predominately from the wealthier people. as was the original argument made.

maybe you could argue that the wealthy are subsidizing the wealthy.

its still corporate welfare and its still higher than social welfare and its still re-distrubution of money from individuals into companies which are not individuals but yes I get your convoluted point, I do wish people in america would stop defending the wealthy so much and spend so much energy attacking the poor.

Its disgusting

LOL this thread.

But i am not poor nor will i ever be and just to be clear if you can spend over 200 on RAM you are not poor.

But who would pay for you then?

No one in this thread is poor. But when it comes to supporting the poor, rather it be someone else.

WAAAAAAA! Someone has more stuff than me...

Socialism works well for all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. All of those places have a much higher standard of living for the average citizen than the US. Did you mean Communism? You do realize communism and socialism are not the same thing?

Poverty is most cases is generational. You are born into poverty and there's a whole system in place to make sure you stay in poverty. Your post is beyond ignorant.

@sonicare: You are correct that most in this thread is not poor. And as to support, well if you pay your tax, we all already pay way to much to them.

And in America no one has to stay poor.

@mrbojangles25: get a job, hippy

There was the TARP program. Toxic asset relief program, but that was a loan from the government to the banks and it was paid back. The government actually made money off of it, I believe.

Wrong. Go away house plant, you aren't welcome here.

Wrong how? Those countries have universal healthcare that's of much higher quality than our care in the US, free or cheap higher education, livable minimum wages, good social safety nets. Socialism, which is just properly regulated capitalism, works well. Unregulated or poorly regulated capitalism like we have in the US just results in the rich preying upon the poor.

I have one of the best jobs in the world :D

@tryit said:

@comp_atkins said:

@tryit said:

@comp_atkins said:

@tryit said:

that is actually very inaccurate.

The best way to describe the American economic system is as such 'the worlds leading corporate socialism state'

the middle and the bottom subsidize the wealthy.

facts would suggest otherwise.

those in the highest earning quintile (81st to 99th percentile ) earn about 55% of the income and pay nearly 70% of the federal income taxes received by the government, as you would expect with a progressive tax system

not including the tax rates which for large companies is net around 13% corporate welfare is 92 billion, while social is 59 billion. This also does not include long standing subsidies like for farming etc.

https://idavidmcallen.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/government-spends-more-on-corporate-welfare-subsidies-than-social-welfare-programs/

that may be the case, but the revenue for that welfare is coming predominately from the wealthier people. as was the original argument made.

maybe you could argue that the wealthy are subsidizing the wealthy.

its still corporate welfare and its still higher than social welfare and its still re-distrubution of money from individuals into companies which are not individuals but yes I get your convoluted point, I do wish people in america would stop defending the wealthy so much and spend so much energy attacking the poor.

Its disgusting

i'm not defending anything other than the truth. if you want to move the goalpost to make it about the massive subsidies offered to corporate america, that is a different discussion.

meh. i do ok. as i mentioned before, i've never known poverty

@bigfootpart2:

Canada like the US and most everywhere is a mixed economy. The primary differences that you refer too are largely governance decisions that have little to do with who owns what (e.g. Government vs private sector). Even our single payer healthcare system has a significant private sector component as do many European systems.

And socialism is not simply properly regulated capitalism. Regulation is a governance mechanism and ultimately the purview of government. By definition, Socialism also describes the underlying economic system; which in the case of all the countries you mentioned is predominantly capitalism with some exceptions.....hence mixed economy.

All of America's problems are first and foremost issues of governance, not the underlying economic system.

It must be a sad way to live, believing that your destiny is determined by nefarious, evil richers, and not by your own attitude and effort.

One of the most liberating revelations you can come to is that you, and only you, can control your actions, and that it is your actions that are the determining factor in your ability to succeed at life.

Being poor is expensive in the USA. I would bet only a small percentage ever get a chance to get out of that situation. And they'll take it. Don't even think for a moment that people enjoy or choose to be poor. Or that it's because they are lesser people. I know there are people out there confusing a loss of hope or prospects with a lack of ambition. Beat a person down enough times and they'll whimper and cry and no they won't look very ambitious and full of life anymore. They won't look 'deserving' I suppose.

Something about this persisting idea that if you work hard enough you can become richer, and then the statistical reality of the divide in wealth in the USA don't fit together in my mind.

The scariest thing though, something that nobody has talked about yet in this thread, is that normal or rich people can suddenly end up among the poor. Within a day's notice. Without warning. And they won't get back out. And that can radically change someones perspective. There are people like that who would love to tell you about it.

There is a radiolab series about this sort of thing. Contains one of those stories that is pretty heartbreaking in my opinion. You may disagree with what these people say but I think it is pretty well done, and valuable no matter what side of this topic you fall on. Here.